The High Court has rejected AW’s objections to his surrender to the United Kingdom for prosecution on 12 alleged offences, finding that the legal requirements for surrender were met. The judgment does not record that a surrender order was made; it concludes that the court may make one under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The warrant sought AW for prosecution over alleged firearms, ammunition and Class A drug offences, including conspiracy charges. The Minister for Justice and Equality was the applicant. The warrant was issued on 6 January 2016, and AW was arrested on 11 June 2017.
AW challenged the clarity of the warrant and whether the alleged conduct corresponded to offences under Irish law. The court held that the ordinary meanings of “conspiracy”, “firearm” and “ammunition”, read with the warrant as a whole, established correspondence. It also relied on supplementary information from the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), including details about alleged co-conspirators, weapons, ammunition and the prosecution’s account of AW’s alleged role. The court held that it could consider information supplied by the CPS, although the UK issuing judicial authority had not provided it.
The CPS said it intended to seek a longer timeframe for one alleged drugs conspiracy, from 1 January 2014 to 13 August 2015. The court said it could not amend the warrant itself. It held that the proposed change would be a matter for the UK court and would not prevent surrender; AW had been told of the prosecution’s intention.
AW also argued that he faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in HMP Liverpool or HMP Altcourse. The court considered inspection reports and updated information about remedial work at HMP Liverpool, including the removal from use of 172 places because of unacceptable conditions. It found no substantial grounds to believe AW would face the prohibited treatment in either prison, including because of his mental health or the availability of drugs.
The court rejected his objections based on family and personal rights and the UK’s notification that it intended to leave the European Union. It said there was no evidence that he would lose rights protected by the EU Charter or the European Arrest Warrant framework while the UK remained an EU member state. The court concluded that none of the objections required it to refuse surrender.