The Supreme Court refused to order the surrender of James Anthony Tighe to the United Kingdom, finding that the European Arrest Warrant contained a serious conflict about three charges and did not give adequate particulars of a fourth.
The warrant sought Tighe’s surrender for prosecution on four alleged offences relating to conduct said to have occurred between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2005. They included three charges of conspiracy: two concerning alleged schemes to cheat the Public Revenue and one concerning arrangements to facilitate the retention or control of criminal proceeds. The fourth alleged that Tighe cheated the Public Revenue by failing to disclose income.
The warrant certified that all four offences fell within categories on the European Framework List, relying on “fraud” and “laundering of the proceeds of crime”. But it also stated that conspiracy offences were not covered by those categories. Three of the four charges were conspiracies. The Supreme Court said the warrant did not rely on correspondence with an Irish offence for those charges, and noted that the issuing authority had supplied the conflicting certifications.
The High Court had ordered surrender, reasoning that the existence of conspiracy at common law in Ireland established correspondence. In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 21 December 2010, the Supreme Court disagreed. It said conspiracy was not an offence in itself: it depended on an agreement to commit a specific unlawful act. Citing its earlier decision in Attorney General v Hilton, the court said there was no Irish offence of conspiracy to cheat the Revenue. It therefore declined to order surrender on the three conspiracy charges.
The court also rejected surrender on the fourth charge. The warrant gave only the allegation that Tighe failed to disclose income during the stated period. The judgment said it did not describe the circumstances of the alleged offence, say that he was obliged to disclose the income, or set out facts that would allow the court to determine whether the conduct corresponded to an Irish offence or fell within a listed category.
The ruling concerned whether this warrant provided a basis for surrender. The court’s conclusion was that it would refuse to order Tighe’s delivery under the warrant; it did not determine whether the allegations were true.