The Supreme Court has set out its reasons for ordering the release of Sergejs Rimsa from custody while he was awaiting surrender to Latvia under a European arrest warrant.
The High Court had ordered Rimsa's surrender to Latvia on 13 December 2007 and committed him to Cloverhill Prison pending transfer. The surrender order took effect 15 days later. Under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, surrender then had to occur within a further ten days unless a later date was validly agreed.
Irish officials repeatedly contacted the Latvian Central Authority. Latvia eventually said holiday arrangements and flight availability meant it could not collect Rimsa by the original deadline. The Irish and Latvian central authorities agreed that surrender could instead take place on 9 January 2008.
Before that transfer occurred, Rimsa challenged the legality of his detention under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected his challenge, but the Supreme Court subsequently ordered his release.
Chief Justice Murray held that the postponement agreement was invalid. Section 16(5)(b) of the 2003 Act authorised Ireland's Central Authority to agree a later surrender date, but, properly interpreted in light of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision, that agreement had to be made with the issuing state's judicial authority.
Article 23(3) of the Framework Decision required any revised surrender date to be agreed between the judicial authorities of the two states. In Rimsa's case, the agreement had instead been made between the Irish and Latvian central authorities. Latvia's identified judicial authority was the First Instance Riga Vidzeme Suburb Court.
The court also held that section 10 of the 2003 Act expressly required surrender to comply with both the Act and the Framework Decision.
Because no valid postponement had been agreed, the statutory release requirement applied once the original ten-day period expired. Rimsa's continued detention was therefore unlawful.