The High Court refused an application to surrender a woman to Romania, finding that the conduct described in the European Arrest Warrant did not correspond to the Irish offences relied on by the State.
Mr Justice Binchy gave judgment on 8 April 2020 in a case brought by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The warrant sought the woman’s surrender to serve a one-year prison sentence imposed by the Zalau Court of Law. The Romanian warrant concerned an allegation that, on 3 February 2015, she used another person’s identity card and marriage certificate to assume that person’s identity to obtain a temporary passport. The judgment records that she had been convicted in Romania of false identity.
The State argued that the conduct corresponded to offences under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, including using a false instrument, deception to induce an act, or obtaining services by deception. The respondent argued that the documents were genuine documents belonging to someone else, and that their use by another person did not make them false instruments. She also disputed receiving notice of the Romanian trial. Those and other objections were raised, but the court decided the application on correspondence alone.
The judge concluded that the offences involving deception required gain or loss of money or property, which the conduct described in the warrant did not involve. He also found that a genuine identity document did not become a false instrument merely because someone other than its holder used it for an illicit purpose. The judgment says the State had not explained how a validly issued document fell within the statutory definition of a false instrument.
The court therefore held that the conduct did not appear to constitute an offence in Ireland, or at least none of the offences advanced by the State in the application. It refused the surrender application. Because that conclusion resolved the case, the judge did not consider the respondent’s remaining objections, including those concerning fair procedures, delay and the absentia trial. The ruling addresses the offences argued in this application; it does not determine those other objections.