The High Court rejected all objections to the surrender of a man sought by Germany to face trial for murder, finding that the statutory requirements for surrender were met. The judgment does not itself record a final surrender order: it says the court “may make an Order” for his surrender to Germany to receive him.
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued on 13 May 2016 by a public prosecutor in Lübeck. The respondent argued that surrender was prohibited because there had been no decision to charge and try him, and challenged whether the prosecutor qualified as a judicial authority under Irish and EU law. He also raised delay, fair procedures, family and private life, and abuse of process.
On the charge-and-trial objection, the court relied on a signed confirmation from the issuing prosecutor stating that the respondent was to be charged and that a decision had been made to try him. The respondent’s German-law expert said the investigation was still preliminary and that no formal decision had been made. The court held that the law did not require a particular formality, and that the expert evidence did not establish that no decision had been made. It concluded that surrender was not prohibited under section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The respondent said the alleged offence dated back more than 20 years and that he had lived in Ireland for about a decade, including four years in Ballinasloe, County Galway, with his partner. The court acknowledged the lapse of time but found a high public interest in surrender for an alleged murder. It said the respondent had been identified as a suspect on 22 January 2016 following Lithuanian investigations, became an accused person three days later, and the warrant issued within four months. The court found no culpable delay, disproportionate interference with his rights, unfairness meeting the relevant threshold, or abuse of process. The judgment records the murder as an allegation, not a finding of guilt.
On the prosecutor’s status, the respondent relied on expert evidence about German prosecutors’ place in the civil service and possible supervisory instructions. The German authorities said the Lübeck prosecutor’s office participated in criminal justice, that any external instruction was subject to legal limits and safeguards, and that no instruction had been given in this case. The court found the respondent had not rebutted the presumption that the prosecutor was an issuing judicial authority, and rejected that objection.
The court also found that Germany was a designated member state, the warrant was properly endorsed, and surrender was not required to be refused under the other provisions it considered. It rejected every objection and said it was otherwise satisfied that section 16(1) had been met, leaving it able to make a surrender order.