The High Court has rejected an objection to the surrender of an anonymised man to Germany, finding that his family’s circumstances did not outweigh the public interest in his facing trial there.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2013, Mr Justice Edwards said the respondent was wanted under a European arrest warrant issued by Germany in 2008. The warrant concerns an allegation that he stabbed a man in the chest with a flick knife in 1993. The respondent denies the prosecution’s account of his conduct, and the German charge remains an allegation.
The respondent opposed surrender under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, arguing that it would disproportionately interfere with his and his children’s rights to family life. He relied on his six children’s ties to Ireland and on the health and support needs of his eldest son, who has special needs. A psychologist’s reports, which were unsworn and unverified, were admitted by the court on a provisional basis and considered with appropriate weight.
The court accepted that the family had deep roots in Ireland and that surrender would be hard and distressing for them. It also recognised the eldest child’s vulnerability and his close relationship with his father. However, it found the evidence about the family’s wider support network and possible alternative care arrangements unsatisfactory. It considered that the psychologist had described possible harmful effects but had not established that they would occur or that other support could not be provided.
The judge also found the respondent had been less than candid in oral evidence about his family network and the support available to his children. The court concluded there was no reason to believe the children would not be properly cared for or that their welfare would be seriously prejudiced by surrender.
On delay, the court accepted that the offence was serious and found no evidence that German authorities knew the respondent’s whereabouts earlier or had been negligent in trying to locate him. It concluded that the passage of time did not reduce the pressing public interest in his extradition, particularly given its finding that he had fled Germany while awaiting trial.
The court therefore declined to uphold the section 37 objection. The judgment records that the applicant sought an order directing surrender under section 16; the supplied extract does not include the final operative order making that direction.