The High Court has ordered Thomas Ollsen’s surrender to Sweden under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections to the request. Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 20 February 2008.
Sweden sought the respondent’s surrender in connection with four alleged offences. The warrant was endorsed for execution in December 2006, and he was arrested in Ireland in July 2007. The court was satisfied that the arrested person was the person named in the warrant and that no statutory or other bar to surrender applied.
The respondent argued that the Attorney General’s discretionary scheme for paying legal costs did not provide adequate and fair representation. His lawyers submitted that its fees were inadequate and that payment was not guaranteed. The judge acknowledged concerns about the scheme’s payment levels and delays, but found that the respondent had been represented by his chosen solicitor and senior and junior counsel, and had suffered no disadvantage. He held that the scheme met the State’s obligation to ensure legal representation in this case. He also concluded that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply to the surrender proceedings.
A further objection was that Sweden wanted the respondent returned only to continue an investigation, rather than to face prosecution. The respondent relied on an affidavit from his Swedish lawyer. In reply, the Swedish prosecutor described the investigation process and said that Swedish law required the respondent’s presence before a final formal prosecution decision could be made. The judge accepted that the warrant sought surrender for prosecution. He found that the evidence established an intention to prosecute and try the respondent, and that the statutory presumption of such a decision had not been rebutted.
The court also rejected objections based on the absence of bail in Sweden and the possibility of prolonged custody or limits on communication. The judge accepted that Sweden had no bail system identical to Ireland’s, but found that Swedish courts could order pre-trial release subject to conditions. He said the evidence did not establish that the respondent’s rights would be breached or that he would face indefinite detention incommunicado.
The court’s order was for surrender. It did not decide the alleged offences; any prosecution and decisions about detention or release would be matters for the Swedish authorities and courts.