The High Court has ordered Daniel Paul Matache committed to prison pending a decision by the Minister for Justice on his extradition to Switzerland, where he is wanted in connection with alleged offences arising from an assault in March 2012.
The order followed a dispute over whether Switzerland was seeking Matache for investigation or to proceed against him, as required by section 9 of the Extradition Act 1965. Mr Justice Binchy ruled on December 4, 2019 that the request was for proceedings against him. No indictment had issued, and the court did not order his extradition itself.
The Swiss request concerns alleged attempted homicide, attempted intentional homicide, serious assault, common assault, coercion, disruption of public traffic and a serious traffic infraction. The warrant and request allege that Matache and others attacked a man in a public place with golf clubs and knives, intending to kill him, but were interrupted. The judgment records that the allegations are supported by accounts from the victim and his girlfriend, evidence of the victim’s injuries, telephone intercepts and forensic material. These are allegations in the extradition request, not findings of the Irish court.
Matache’s objection was that the Swiss investigation had not concluded and no decision to indict him had been made. His lawyers said Swiss procedure required him to be given an opportunity to challenge evidence and be heard before an indictment could issue. The Swiss Public Prosecutor said the preliminary proceedings were concluded, that there was sufficient evidence to put Matache on trial, and that the required procedural steps had to occur before an indictment could validly issue. The prosecutor did not say that an indictment decision had already been made.
The judge considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney General v Pocevicius, which treated prosecution as a process that could satisfy section 9 even though an indictment had not yet issued. He found the Swiss procedures served a similar purpose: allowing the respondent to be heard before the prosecution decision. The judge also noted that another person alleged to have been involved had been convicted of attempted homicide in connection with the events, but said that circumstance was not decisive.
The court concluded that Switzerland was proceeding against Matache and intended to indict him after the required statutory procedures, subject to anything he might say in response. It found the relevant requirements of the Extradition Act had been met and made an order committing him to prison under section 29(1), pending the Minister’s order for extradition.