The High Court rejected John Quilligan’s objection to his proposed surrender to Austria under section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The court found that the evidence did not rebut the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him. The judgment says the court was therefore not required to refuse surrender on that ground; it does not record an order directing surrender.
Austria’s European Arrest Warrant sought Quilligan for trial on four alleged offences involving rhinoceros horns and heads. The warrant described him as strongly suspected of belonging to an Irish criminal group specialising in rhinoceros-horn thefts and of encouraging or attempting to encourage another man, prosecuted separately, to steal. The alleged incidents were in Rastenfeld, Vienna and Weißenkirchen in Styria. These remain allegations in the warrant, not findings by the High Court.
Quilligan did not consent to surrender. His sole objection pursued at the hearing was that no decision had been made in Austria to charge and try him, as required by section 21A. His lawyer’s affidavit said Austrian proceedings were still in the investigative, pre-trial phase, when prosecutors decide whether to file charges or terminate proceedings. Austria’s issuing authority likewise said the case remained pre-trial and that it intended to submit an indictment after Quilligan had an opportunity to respond, unless the suspicion was invalidated.
The court accepted that the case was at the pre-trial stage, but held that this did not establish that no decision to try had been made. It considered the warrant’s references to investigative reports and results, the authority’s statement that facts and circumstances had been clarified extensively, and its explanation for waiting to file an indictment. In the court’s view, nothing showed that evidence critical to deciding whether to send Quilligan for trial remained to be gathered. The planned opportunity for him to respond could explain why an indictment had not yet been filed without showing that the decision to try depended on further investigation.
The court held that the section 21A(2) presumption remained unrebutted and dismissed the objection. It did not determine Quilligan’s guilt or innocence on the Austrian allegations. The judgment records that the other section 16 requirements were uncontroversial and that the court was not required to refuse surrender on section 21A grounds; the source ends without stating a final surrender order.