The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by an Irish citizen against an order surrendering him to Northern Ireland to face prosecution for attempted murder and possession of an explosive substance with intent to endanger life.
The appeal concerned a European Arrest Warrant relating to alleged offences on 18 June 2015. The Court of Appeal was reviewing a High Court decision made on 14 February 2020 under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The High Court had directed surrender after rejecting the appellant’s objections.
The appellant’s certified ground of appeal focused on his right to silence. He argued that Northern Ireland’s Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 could allow a trial court to draw an adverse inference if he did not give evidence at trial, even though he had not been warned during Garda interviews in Letterkenny that this could happen. He contended that surrender would expose him to an egregious breach of his constitutional rights and an unfair trial.
The issuing judicial authority had told the High Court that the prosecution would not seek an inference under Article 3 based on the Garda interviews, where the relevant caution had not been given. It also said Article 4 could permit an inference if an accused did not testify at trial, independently of the decision not to answer questions during Garda interviews. The appellant’s barrister expressed concern that the interviews might still feature in the trial context. These were submissions and information considered by the courts; the Court of Appeal did not determine the appellant’s guilt or the allegations against him.
The Court of Appeal said Gardaí were not obliged to give a caution beyond the one required in Ireland. It accepted that the right to silence has constitutional status but is not unqualified. Differences between trial procedures in jurisdictions do not, by themselves, prevent surrender. The relevant question was whether the Northern Ireland provisions were likely to create an egregious departure amounting to a denial of fundamental rights.
The court found no error in the High Court’s analysis. It concluded that the safeguards associated with Article 4 meant the provision did not establish the kind of egregious violation required to refuse surrender. It also rejected the claim that the High Court had failed to consider the appellant’s evidence, finding that the evidence was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that the issuing state would comply with the Framework Decision.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal directed that effect be given without delay to the High Court’s surrender order. It reminded the appellant that he could make a constitutional complaint before surrender and directed that he be brought before the High Court again if he had not been surrendered within the statutory time or if circumstances beyond the states’ control prevented surrender.