The High Court ordered Eamon Devlin’s surrender to Northern Ireland to face prosecution for an offence described in a European arrest warrant as “cheating the public revenue”. The order followed the court’s rejection of objections concerning double criminality, where the offence was alleged to have occurred, delay and the respondent’s health.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 24 January 2008, concerned a warrant issued in Northern Ireland on 4 April 2007. It was endorsed for execution by the High Court on 6 June 2007. Devlin was arrested on 21 June and brought before the court the following day.
The issuing judicial authority had marked the warrant to indicate that the alleged conduct fell within the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision’s list of offences, including fraud. The respondent’s counsel argued that the court should require evidence of United Kingdom law before accepting that the offence qualified for surrender without checking double criminality. The judge rejected that argument, saying the court could rely on the marked box unless there was a genuine and manifest error on the face of the warrant. He found no such error in this case.
The respondent also objected that the alleged conduct took place in Northern Ireland in 1997, before an amendment to the Irish Constitution that changed the wording concerning the national territory. The judge rejected the argument that the offence should be treated as having been committed in the executing state, describing the submission as devoid of merit.
The alleged offences were said to have occurred between 3 July 1997 and 14 May 1998. The respondent argued that the delay in seeking surrender was unexplained and prejudiced his ability to receive a fair and expeditious trial. His counsel also submitted that surrender might previously have been unavailable under extradition law because the alleged offence could have been treated as a revenue offence. The judge said the Framework Decision allowed a warrant to issue for an offence alleged to have occurred before its adoption.
The judgment records medical evidence that the respondent had undergone a liver transplant in 2000, required ongoing treatment and monitoring, and had experienced severe episodes of encephalitis and diabetes. The judge said the respondent had not shown particular prejudice to a fair trial arising from the delay, or established that surrender posed a real risk to his health or life. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he presumed the respondent’s foreseeable medical needs would be met in detention in the issuing state.
The court found the requirements of section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 satisfied and said there was no reason to refuse surrender. The order permits surrender for prosecution; the judgment does not determine the underlying charge.