The Supreme Court allowed Scott Dyer’s appeal against extradition orders made by the High Court, ruling that the Jersey warrants and supporting evidence did not establish the required correspondence with offences under Irish law. It substituted an order dismissing the Attorney General’s application.
The Attorney General had sought Dyer’s extradition to Jersey on 25 warrants. The High Court President made the orders on 26 March 2003. On appeal, the only issue was whether the offences described in the warrants corresponded to offences under Irish law, as required by the Extradition Act 1965.
Twenty-four warrants concerned alleged fraud offences; a separate warrant alleged an attempt to commit a similar offence, which was not contested as corresponding to an Irish offence. The Attorney General did not pursue two other warrants. A representative warrant alleged that, around December 1997 in Jersey, Dyer obtained £3,200 by falsely claiming that a Cagiva Moke vehicle belonged to a car-hire company, when it was the property of another company.
The Attorney General relied on Irish statutory offences requiring an intent to defraud. That phrase did not appear in the warrants. An affidavit from a Jersey Crown Advocate explained that Jersey criminal fraud required a deliberate false representation intended to cause, and resulting in, actual prejudice to someone and actual benefit to the accused or another. The advocate also said Jersey law did not require the relevant mental element to be set out in the warrant or indictment.
Justice Fennelly said the correspondence inquiry turns on the factual components alleged, rather than the offence’s name alone. Foreign-law evidence may be admitted where needed to explain unfamiliar wording. The affidavit could explain the Jersey phrase “contrary to common law” and the elements of criminal fraud.
But the affidavit did not refer to the warrants at issue, and the warrants did not describe the charges as criminal fraud. The court therefore found a missing link: the documents did not show that Dyer was charged with an offence whose elements included an intent to defraud or cause actual prejudice. The appeal was allowed and the extradition application dismissed. The judgment did not determine the truth of the allegations.