The High Court refused to surrender Christian Charron to France under a European Arrest Warrant, finding that the facts provided for one of the three offences did not establish an element required for a corresponding Irish offence. The court said the offences carried a single composite sentence that could not be separated, so surrender had to be refused.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 14 April 2011. The warrant sought Mr Charron’s return to serve the outstanding two years of a three-year sentence, with one year suspended, imposed in France on 31 May 2010. He had been tried in absentia and opposed surrender.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform applied for a surrender order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court was satisfied that Mr Charron was the person named in the warrant, that it had been endorsed for execution, and that the warrant met the Act’s formal requirements, subject to the disputed question of correspondence between offences.
Mr Charron argued that the prosecution was malicious and politically motivated, citing a dispute between his family and French authorities. The court rejected that objection, saying his claims were uncorroborated and did not displace the presumption that France respected human rights. It also dismissed his objection under section 45, finding the written undertaking from the French judicial authority clearly promised a retrial opportunity, notice of its time and place, and permission to attend.
On correspondence, the court found that the first offence, described in the warrant as “swindling”, did not require correspondence to be shown under the applicable statutory provision. It also accepted that the second offence, aiding and abetting criminal bankruptcy, corresponded to counselling or procuring theft under Irish law.
The third offence concerned employing two people without making declarations required under French labour law. The Minister argued that this corresponded to Irish offences involving failure to disclose employment or tax information. The court said additional information from the French authority clarified which declarations were missing, but the Irish offences required proof that the conduct was done knowingly or wilfully. The warrant and additional information did not allege those facts, and the court said they could not be inferred from the French conviction alone.
The court therefore found correspondence had not been established for the third offence. As the three offences were covered by one aggregate sentence and could not be severed, it refused to surrender Mr Charron.