The High Court has refused a woman’s application to add a new challenge to her arrest to her objections in a European arrest warrant case, finding the proposed point was raised too late and appeared weak on the limited argument heard.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the ruling on 17 October 2012. The application concerned proceedings brought by the Minister for Justice and Equality seeking the surrender of Yvonne Doyle to the United Kingdom. The judgment does not decide whether she should be surrendered.
Doyle’s existing Points of Objection had been filed on 20 June 2012. On 30 July, as the surrender hearing was nearing its end, her counsel sought to raise a new argument: that the Garda entry to her home to arrest her lacked lawful authority and breached her constitutional rights. The proposed amendment also argued that the arrest tainted the proceedings and that surrender would be prohibited under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Her solicitor said the arrest issue was important and should be heard in the interests of justice. An affidavit from Doyle stated that she had raised the point with her legal advisers in March 2012. An affidavit from her former solicitor said its significance had not been appreciated by the legal team before it arose in court on 30 July.
The Minister opposed the amendment, arguing that the new ground had not been pleaded in accordance with court rules and that the hearing was almost complete. The Minister also disputed the proposed argument’s merits, relying on sections 13 and 25 of the 2003 Act. The respondent’s solicitor argued that section 25 did not authorise entry to a dwelling to make an arrest without a domestic warrant.
The judge said objections in European arrest warrant proceedings were more like grounds in a judicial review than pleadings in an ordinary civil action. Although the court could overlook a late objection if the interests of justice required it, he was not satisfied that they did here. He said he was not expressing a definitive view on the constitutional issue, which had not been fully argued at a surrender hearing on a properly pleaded objection. On the limited argument before him, he considered the proposed point, if stateable, very weak and likely to have poor prospects of success.
The court also took account of the history of adjournments and changes in legal representation, which had delayed the proceedings. It refused permission to amend the objections. The judgment made no final determination of the arrest’s lawfulness or of the surrender request.