The High Court has ordered the surrender of Patrick Sparling, Daniel O’Brien and James Coffey to the United Kingdom, where they are sought for prosecution over 39 alleged offences connected with a roofing company they jointly owned and directed.
In a decision delivered on 8 April 2024, Ms Justice Melanie Greally dismissed the men’s objections and made a surrender order for each under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The ruling addressed the objections to surrender; it did not determine whether the alleged offences were committed.
The warrants were issued in December 2022 by a judge at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court. The allegations concern work by Stanton Roofing and Building Limited. The issuing authority alleges the three men misled householders about the condition of roofs, chimneys or walls, the repairs needed and their cost, and carried out unnecessary work at inflated prices. Some allegations also include aggressive demands for payment. The offences span transactions said to have taken place between May and August 2020.
The men argued that surrender would expose them to six-month sentences imposed in 2021 for breaching restraint orders, even though those matters were not listed among the warrant offences. They said this would breach the rule of speciality, which limits prosecution or punishment after surrender to the offences covered by the warrant. They also argued that their liberty and access to an effective remedy would not be adequately protected.
The judge found that the sentences related to civil contempt, not criminal offences within the rule of speciality. The restraint orders had been made in UK proceeds-of-crime proceedings to preserve assets that might be available to compensate alleged victims if convictions were obtained. The judge said the contempt sentences were punitive, but also served a coercive purpose by deterring further breaches. Their punitive character did not turn the underlying conduct into a criminal offence for the purposes of the rule.
The court also rejected the human-rights objection. It found the detention orders fell within the European Convention on Human Rights provision allowing detention for non-compliance with a lawful court order. The judge said the men had not established that they lacked an effective remedy in the UK, which gives effect to Convention rights through its Human Rights Act.
The court concluded that no statutory ground raised in the decision prohibited surrender and ordered the surrender of all three men. The decision does not state that the men have been convicted of the 39 alleged offences.