The High Court has ordered Peter Anthony Keating’s surrender to the United Kingdom for prosecution on nine alleged offences, after dismissing his objections to the request.
In a judgment delivered on 15 July 2024, Mr Justice Patrick McGrath ruled that none of the objections prevented surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The warrant was issued under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The judgment says Keating had been in custody in Ireland since his arrest on 14 September 2023.
The UK warrant seeks prosecution for alleged conspiracies to possess firearms, ammunition and prohibited weapons, and to pervert the course of justice. The allegations concern a plan to obtain and conceal weapons so that a co-conspirator, Thomas Kavanagh, could reveal their location to police and seek a reduced sentence. These are allegations in the warrant, not findings that the offences occurred.
Keating argued that temporary surrender during his Irish prison sentence would create uncertainty about the legal basis and duration of his detention. The judge held that the issue was premature: any request for temporary surrender would be considered separately after a section 16 order. At that stage, Keating could make submissions, and the court could require undertakings or refuse temporary surrender if they were inadequate.
The court found that the alleged acts corresponded to offences under Irish law. It also rejected the argument that surrender was barred because some alleged conduct took place outside the UK. The judgment said Keating’s alleged participation in the conspiracy occurred while he was physically in England and Wales, based on a clarification obtained from the UK authorities. The judge concluded that section 44 did not bar surrender; alternatively, Ireland would exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances.
Keating also relied on reports raising concerns about overcrowding and violence in UK prisons and sought inquiries and assurances. The judge was not persuaded that the material showed even a generalised risk of ill-treatment that would raise an issue under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The objection was dismissed.
The judgment concludes that all grounds of objection were rejected and that an order for surrender would be made under section 16. It does not decide any later application for temporary surrender under section 19.