The High Court has ordered a respondent surrendered to the United Kingdom to face prosecution for alleged conspiracy to cause explosions, rejecting his objections that the anticipated use of co-conspirators’ convictions could undermine a fair trial.
In a judgment delivered on 28 May 2014, Mr Justice Edwards considered an application under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The respondent did not consent to surrender. The warrant, issued on 12 August 2013, alleged that he conspired with others between 20 June and 18 August 2012 to cause explosions likely to endanger life or seriously damage property in the UK or Ireland. These were allegations in the warrant, not findings that the respondent committed the offence.
The respondent argued that sections 74 and 75 of the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could allow the prosecution to rely on other people’s convictions as evidence that they committed offences. He said their use could infringe his rights to a fair trial, to challenge evidence and to the presumption of innocence. His legal expert considered it open to prosecutors to use those provisions, and said there was no reason to believe they would not try.
The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, submitted that the evidence showed only a possibility of the provisions being used and did not establish that the respondent would lack safeguards or remedies in the UK. The applicant also pointed to other potential prosecution evidence described in the expert’s affidavit, including telephone records, CCTV, forensic evidence and witness testimony.
The judge found the respondent had not shown that sections 74 and 75 would necessarily be used, or that safeguards and remedies in the UK were absent or inadequate. He held that the constitutional trial guarantee in Article 38.1 applied to trials in Ireland, and that differences between the two countries’ evidence rules did not by themselves justify refusing surrender. The evidence also fell short of establishing substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court rejected the objections under section 37(1)(a) and (b). It found the other requirements for surrender satisfied and made an order under section 16(1) directing that the respondent be surrendered to a person authorised by the UK to receive him. The order concerns surrender for prosecution; the judgment does not determine guilt.