The High Court ordered the surrender of Aiden Hooper to the United Kingdom to serve the remaining balance of sentences imposed for robbery and theft, despite a submission that surrender would be disproportionate because less than a month remained in custody.
In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2010, Mr Justice Michael Peart said Hooper had been arrested in Ireland on 19 May under a European arrest warrant issued in the UK and endorsed for execution in Ireland. He had been held in custody pending the surrender application.
The offences were committed in the UK in June 2007, when Hooper was 17. He received an 18-month sentence for robbery and concurrent sentences of 12 and nine months for two theft offences. He served part of the sentences and was released on licence in April 2008, subject to conditions including supervision, residence and a restriction on leaving the UK.
The judgment said the licence was revoked after Hooper breached at least some conditions, including by returning to Ireland, where he and his family lived. The balance to be served was 236 days. By the judgment date, he had spent 182 days in custody on the warrant, which were to be deducted from the remaining term. The judge estimated that about 54 days would remain on surrender, less any further time before it took place, meaning the period would probably be under a month.
For Hooper, counsel John Fitzgerald argued that surrender was disproportionate because of the small amount of time left. Hooper’s affidavit said he had gone to Wales on holiday with friends, pleaded guilty, and returned home after encountering difficulty contacting social services and having no accommodation there. The judge recorded those statements as part of the respondent’s account.
The judge said the issuing authority was entitled to seek the return of people to serve sentences imposed for offences in its jurisdiction. The remaining sentence could be weighed against the impact of removal, but the short period did not decide the issue in Hooper’s favour. He had already been separated from his family while in custody in Ireland, and the judgment identified no exceptional family circumstances.
The court found that the offences corresponded to Irish robbery and theft offences and that the minimum gravity requirement was met by the sentences originally imposed. It also found no basis to refuse surrender under the specified statutory provisions. Concluding that surrender was not prohibited by Part III of the European Arrest Warrant Act or the Framework Decision, the court said it was required to make the order sought.