The Supreme Court allowed the Minister for Justice’s appeal and dismissed S M R’s cross-appeal in proceedings concerning a European arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom. The court overturned a High Court order that had refused surrender on health and delay grounds. Its decision addressed whether surrender should be ordered in Ireland; it did not determine the allegations against S M R.
The warrant sought his surrender to face three alleged offences of indecent assault on his granddaughter in Barnet, England, between June 2000 and September 2001. The allegations described in the warrant included sexual touching and kissing. They remain allegations in this judgment.
The High Court had found that S M R faced a real risk of dying under severe stress and that the surrender and trial process would cause such stress. It also found his health had worsened over time. On appeal, the Supreme Court said it could assess the medical evidence itself because the relevant health evidence was in affidavits and the witness cross-examined had not addressed it.
The medical reports described advanced coronary disease, impaired heart function and a risk that severe stress could precipitate an acute coronary event. The Supreme Court concluded the evidence did not establish the High Court’s finding of a real risk of death from severe stress. It accepted that stress could worsen his condition, but held that this possibility was insufficient to prohibit surrender on constitutional grounds. It also accepted evidence that appropriate healthcare would be available in the UK, whether he was on bail or in custody. The court therefore allowed the Minister’s appeal on health.
On delay, the judgment noted that the Minister was not personally responsible for the delay, but was fixed with responsibility for delay by UK police and prosecution authorities. A domestic arrest warrant was issued in January 2003, while the European arrest warrant followed in February 2005. The explanation included awaiting the Irish Supreme Court’s decision in a separate case and proposed amendments to Irish legislation. Applying the approach in earlier surrender cases, the court said delay was for the UK courts to consider and found that the circumstances did not amount to an abuse of process or require refusal of surrender in Ireland.
S M R’s cross-appeal argued that the domestic warrant referred to one offence while the European warrant specified three. The Supreme Court held that the European warrant met the statutory requirements and that the domestic warrant’s stated offence was sufficient. It dismissed the cross-appeal. The final disposition was to allow the Minister’s appeal and dismiss S M R’s cross-appeal.