The High Court has ruled that there is no legal reason to prohibit the surrender of Noel Patrick Corcoran to the UK for prosecution under a European Arrest Warrant. The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 31 January 2018, said the court could make an order for his surrender to an authorised UK representative.
The warrant concerns two alleged offences involving the fraudulent evasion or attempted evasion of duty on goods. It alleges that in July 2012 Mr Corcoran was driving a van stopped on the M2 outside Belfast, where 200,000 cigarettes in counterfeit packaging were found without the appropriate revenue having been paid. The warrant also alleges he failed to appear at a Police Service of Northern Ireland station in October 2012 after being bailed to do so. These are allegations; the High Court was considering surrender for prosecution, not deciding guilt.
Mr Corcoran objected to surrender under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, arguing it would breach his rights because of the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Northern Ireland prisons and the effect on his family and personal life. The judgment records that he had lived in Cork all his life, had mobility difficulties arising from polio, chronic anxiety and other health conditions, and relied on support from family members, some of whom lived in Cork.
The judge rejected the family-life objection, finding that the expected disruption and disability did not make this an exceptional case and that the public interest in surrender outweighed his private interests.
On prison conditions, the court considered information from the head of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It said all new adult male committals initially go to Maghaberry Prison, and that no assurance could be given he would avoid it. The information described assessments for new prisoners, support for first-time prisoners and vulnerable people, and healthcare arrangements. The court also considered inspection reports and submissions from Mr Corcoran’s counsel about continuing concerns, including self-harm support and medicines management.
The judge found no real risk that Mr Corcoran would face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She said the concerns about medicine handling did not establish a substantial or reasonable ground to believe he would be bullied over prescribed diazepam or exposed to treatment severe enough to breach Article 3. The court did not find that Maghaberry’s conditions were generally compliant in every respect; it assessed the risk to this respondent on the evidence before it.
The judgment concluded that surrender was not prohibited under the Act. It states that the judge may make an order for surrender to a person authorised by the UK to receive him; it does not state in this passage that the order had already been made or that surrender had taken place.