The High Court has refused a habeas corpus application by Michael McDermott, who was held at Cloverhill Prison while facing surrender under two European Arrest Warrants. The court did not order his release.
Mr Justice William M. McKechnie gave judgment on 27 July 2010. He adopted the reasoning of an earlier High Court judgment, O’Sullivan v Chief Executive of the Irish Prison Service, and held that section 16(12) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, was constitutional and did not breach the applicant’s fair-trial or access-to-courts rights.
The warrants, issued by the City of Westminster Magistrates on 18 December 2009 and 12 February 2010, concerned charges of conspiracy to supply drugs and conspiracy to launder money. McDermott was arrested at Dublin Airport on 9 February 2010. Peart J later directed his surrender under section 16 of the 2003 Act and refused a certificate allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court. McDermott then brought the habeas corpus application.
One challenge concerned the Attorney General’s Scheme for legal representation. McDermott had applied for support, but abandoned that application before a further hearing. His lawyers represented him pro bono. McKechnie J agreed with Peart J that, after withdrawing his application and indicating he would not seek support under the scheme, McDermott lacked standing to challenge whether it adequately protected rights under the EU Framework Decision. The judge treated that challenge as concerning the rights of others and did not decide whether the scheme was adequate.
The applicant also argued that the statutory test for a High Court certificate to appeal was disproportionate under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The test permits a certificate only where the case raises a point of law of exceptional public importance and an appeal is desirable in the public interest. McKechnie J held that the provision did not prima facie infringe the rights relied on, so there was no need to assess proportionality. He said the provision did not exclude every appeal, and that appeals to the Supreme Court on constitutional matters remained available.
The judgment did not rule on whether a declaration of incompatibility would affect McDermott’s detention. The judge remarked, obiter, that such a declaration would not itself invalidate the law or automatically require release. The operative order was to refuse the habeas corpus application.