The Supreme Court ordered the release of Michéal Ó Fallúin after finding that his continued detention under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 had not been justified. The Court held that a pending appeal against his surrender order did not extend the statutory deadline for release.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 3 May 2007, concerned an appeal under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution against a High Court decision refusing to order Ó Fallúin’s release. He had also appealed the order directing his surrender to the United Kingdom, but withdrew that appeal shortly before the Supreme Court hearing. The Court dismissed it. The Article 40 appeal proceeded, and the Court ordered his release at the end of the hearing.
A European Arrest Warrant issued by a London magistrates’ court in June 2004 alleged that Ó Fallúin had conspired with others to defraud the UK Passport Agency using false passport applications. The warrant sought his arrest and surrender for prosecution. Those allegations were not findings in this appeal.
In October 2005, the High Court ordered his surrender and committed him to Cloverhill Prison pending delivery. Under the Act, the surrender order took effect after 15 days. A further provision required surrender within 10 days after that period, subject to specified exceptions, and required immediate release if surrender did not occur in time unless Article 40 proceedings were pending.
The respondents argued that the surrender order was not “for the time being in force” while Ó Fallúin’s appeal was pending, so the release provision did not apply. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It said the appeal had not stayed the High Court order, and the Act did not make a pending appeal an exception to the release requirement. The Court concluded that Ó Fallúin was entitled to release 25 days after the High Court order was made.
The Court limited its order to release under Article 40.4.2, on the basis that the detention was unlawful. It made no decision about the status or effect of the surrender proceedings or the High Court surrender order. It also noted that the European Union framework provision concerning release had not been argued and might require a future decision by the Court of Justice.