The High Court has asked Scottish authorities for more information about all five allegations in a European Arrest Warrant seeking the surrender of a man identified as S.T. for prosecution. The preliminary ruling did not order his surrender. It left the surrender proceedings open while the court seeks further details under section 20(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The warrant, issued on 27 October 2015, concerns allegations of historic sexual abuse said to have occurred in Scotland between 1989 and 1998. It describes five offences involving four young cousins. The judgment identifies the respondent only by initials and redacts the alleged locations.
The respondent challenged the warrant’s description of the allegations, including the broad time periods, and argued that the detail did not meet the statutory requirements. The court found the descriptions of counts one, two, three and five sufficiently clear for the purposes before it. It also held that the warrant specified five offences and that there was no evidence rebutting the presumption that Scotland would comply with the rule of specialty, which limits prosecution after surrender to the offences covered by the warrant.
The court found a lack of sufficient detail about count four. That count alleged acts on “various occasions” over a three-year period, but did not say how often the alleged conduct occurred or whether all the acts were said to have happened on each occasion. The judge said that where greater specificity is attainable, it should be provided, particularly when allegations cover a lengthy period. The court therefore decided to seek further information on count four. The ruling’s conclusion says information is to be sought “in respect of each” offence set out in the warrant.
The respondent also relied on the passage of up to 27 years and said he had previously been questioned by gardaí about similar allegations made by two complainants concerning events in Ireland. He argued that surrender would be unfair and an abuse of process, and would disproportionately interfere with his family life. The court rejected the abuse-of-process argument and found that delay alone did not prohibit surrender. It said he had not put forward evidence of exceptional or particularly harmful consequences to his private or family life, and that the public interest in surrender outweighed the interference identified.
The court also found that the alleged acts corresponded to sexual assault under Irish law. The final decision on surrender was not made in this preliminary ruling; the court first sought further information from the issuing Scottish judicial authority.