The Supreme Court has rejected Renaldas Pocevicius’s appeal against a High Court order directing his detention pending a formal extradition order to Norway. The appeal concerned whether Norway was seeking him for prosecution, whether extradition would be disproportionate, and whether Irish law barred surrender because the alleged offence was committed in Ireland.
The High Court had rejected his objections in April 2013. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and, in a judgment delivered on 24 June 2015 by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie, rejected the grounds pursued. The proportionality ground was expressly abandoned at the appeal hearing, so the Court did not decide it.
Norwegian authorities allege that Pocevicius was complicit in importing about five kilograms of methamphetamine from Lithuania on 25 September 2008. A Lithuanian courier was stopped in Stavanger with the drugs hidden in a vehicle’s petrol tank. The authorities allege that a phone number the courier had been told to contact was linked to Pocevicius. He disputes being in Norway on the date in question and said he had returned to Ireland. The Supreme Court said the conflicting evidence about his movements was for a Norwegian trial court to resolve if the case reached that stage; it did not determine where he was.
The Court considered whether the request met section 9 of the Extradition Act 1965. In Norway, police had formally charged Pocevicius, but a final decision to indict rested with the Director General of Public Prosecutions. Regional prosecutors had provisionally assessed the existing evidence as sufficient to recommend an indictment. They said they would recommend one if the evidence remained unchanged, although the Director General was independent and could decline.
The Court held that formal prosecution proceedings did not have to have begun before section 9 could apply. It found that Norway was not seeking Pocevicius simply for questioning or to gather evidence needed to decide whether to prosecute. The remaining interview opportunity could affect the case, but absent new information the existing evidence would be submitted with a recommendation for indictment. The Court concluded that this process was consistent with section 9.
It also rejected the argument under section 15 that surrender was barred because the offence should be treated as committed in Ireland. The alleged offence was complicity in importing drugs into Norway. The Court said section 15 applies where the specific offence was committed wholly or entirely in Ireland; the possibility that conduct might be prosecutable in Ireland, or that some elements occurred there, was insufficient. Norway had not alleged that Pocevicius committed an act in Ireland as part of the offence.
The Supreme Court therefore rejected the appeal grounds that were pursued. The judgment did not itself make a formal extradition order; the High Court’s detention order was pending such an order or further court direction.