The High Court dismissed Thomas O’Connor’s application for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding it had no jurisdiction to make the reference after its decision on surrender had been announced.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the ruling on 12 January 2015. The application concerned questions proposed by Mr O’Connor about legal assistance under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision, the fairness of the hearing and delays in the proceedings. The Minister for Justice and Equality opposed the request, arguing that the High Court had already given its final decision.
The court had reserved judgment in the surrender proceedings and a related plenary action on 30 May 2014. On 2 December, it announced that it would not uphold Mr O’Connor’s objection to surrender and intended to make an order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for his surrender to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him. It said detailed reasons would follow in writing.
The next day, before those reasons were available, Mr O’Connor’s counsel sought leave to file the reference application. The court adjourned the matter to allow the Minister to consider the request and Mr O’Connor to review the reasons. On 4 December, the court released an unapproved 59-page judgment explaining its surrender decision. The parties made further submissions on the reference application on 11 and 17 December.
Mr O’Connor argued that if the court had jurisdiction, it was obliged to refer a question of EU law arising in the proceedings. The Minister disputed that jurisdiction. In dismissing the application, Mr Justice Edwards followed the Supreme Court’s decision in *McNamara v An Bord Pleanála*, which he said was binding. He held that the relevant final judgment was the decision on the substantive issue, not the later written explanation of the reasons.
The court said the 2 December announcement was its final judgment for the purposes of the EU reference procedure. As the decision had already been made before the application was brought, a reference was no longer needed to enable the court to decide the case. The judge noted that an earlier application, on 1 December, might have allowed the court to defer announcing its decision and consider whether a reference was required. He concluded that the court had ceased to have jurisdiction to seek one after announcing its decision.
The ruling dismissed the reference application as misconceived. It did not alter the earlier decision not to uphold Mr O’Connor’s objection to surrender or the stated intention to make a surrender order.