Judgment: 2018-02-27 · Court archive

High Court rejects objections to surrender on three UK offences, with Brexit issue still outstanding

The preliminary judgment found Irish-law correspondence and minimum-gravity requirements met, but left the UK’s planned EU withdrawal for further consideration.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 210

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The preliminary judgment found Irish-law correspondence and minimum-gravity requirements met, but left the UK’s planned EU withdrawal for further consideration.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
  • United Kingdom
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected R.L.T.’s objections to surrender to the United Kingdom on three offences, but did not make a surrender order. The effect of the UK’s notification that it intended to leave the European Union remained to be considered, pending a Supreme Court decision.

The High Court has rejected R.L.T.’s objections to surrender to the United Kingdom on three offences, but did not make a surrender order. The effect of the UK’s notification that it intended to leave the European Union remained to be considered, pending a Supreme Court decision.

In a preliminary judgment delivered on 27 February 2018, Ms Justice Donnelly considered a European Arrest Warrant dated 23 May 2017. It sought R.L.T.’s surrender over an exposure offence to which he had pleaded guilty but did not appear for sentencing, and allegations of failing to answer bail and failing to notify authorities of foreign travel.

The judge found that each offence corresponded to an offence under Irish law. On the third allegation, she noted that Irish law did not impose the same advance travel-notification requirement as UK legislation. However, the warrant and further information alleged that R.L.T. had been in Ireland for more than seven days without notifying authorities of his address. The judge found that those alleged facts corresponded to Irish notification requirements.

R.L.T. argued that the likely sentences for the specific conduct would fall below the 12-month minimum-gravity threshold for surrender. The court rejected that challenge. It said the warrant stated that the offences carried maximum sentences meeting the threshold, and that the evidence of an English barrister did not establish that a lower maximum applied. The court said it would not predict how the UK courts would allocate or sentence the cases. The judge also rejected the minimum-gravity argument on the failure-to-notify offence, where the respondent’s counsel had acknowledged the argument was weakest.

The court concluded that Irish-law correspondence and minimum gravity had been established for all three offences and rejected the respondent’s objections on those grounds. It said there was no other reason preventing surrender, apart from the unresolved Brexit issue. The judgment was expressly preliminary; it did not decide that issue or order surrender.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review