The High Court has ordered James Jordan’s surrender to authorities in the United Kingdom, where he is sought for prosecution on eight alleged sexual offences.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 23 October 2009. The application was made under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
The warrant was issued in the UK on 18 November 2008 and endorsed for execution in Ireland by the High Court on 11 December 2008. Jordan was arrested on 21 April 2009 and remanded on bail pending the surrender application.
The offences listed in the warrant were rape, indecent assault of girls under 16, sexual touching, and intentionally causing or inciting a girl under 16 to engage in sexual activity. The judgment describes the allegations as relating to eight offences. The court did not determine whether the alleged offences occurred; it considered whether surrender was legally permitted.
The respondent’s counsel had raised an issue about whether one alleged victim was under 16, which could affect the warrant’s classification of an offence. Additional information from the UK issuing authority clarified that the alleged victim was under 16 at the relevant time. Counsel then accepted that no issue remained on that point.
Counsel also argued that the warrant lacked information required by section 11 because it did not name the alleged victim in offences 5 and 6. The court rejected that objection, holding that the warrant and additional information gave Jordan sufficient information about the offences. The additional information established that offences 5 and 6 related to the same victim named for offences 7 and 8.
A further objection relied on section 42, which bars surrender in specified circumstances involving contemplated or existing Irish proceedings concerning the same acts. The court said there was no information that the Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney General was considering proceedings, and no suggestion that Irish proceedings had been brought. It held that the absence of information about possible proceedings did not itself prohibit surrender.
Finding no applicable ground to refuse surrender under the provisions considered, the court ordered Jordan’s surrender to the UK authorities.