The High Court ordered the surrender of David Kerrigan to the United Kingdom for prosecution on charges of murder and attempted murder, rejecting all objections raised against the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
In a judgment delivered on 7 November 2019, Mr Justice Binchy said the EAW sought Kerrigan’s surrender for prosecution. It described allegations that he and others were involved in a fatal knife attack and a later stabbing. The judge stressed that whether Kerrigan was present and actively involved in the alleged events was a matter for trial, not the surrender application.
The court rejected an argument that the warrant was ambiguous because it retained standard wording referring to both prosecution and execution of a sentence. The EAW stated that no sentence had been imposed and set out charges, the judge said, making its purpose clear. He also found that the conduct described in relation to the attempted murder would constitute an offence in Ireland if committed there.
Kerrigan argued that he could not transfer a determinate UK sentence to Ireland if convicted of attempted murder. The judge rejected that objection, noting that the absence of a transfer mechanism was not a ground for refusing surrender under the applicable framework.
The court also declined to seek confirmation that a domestic arrest warrant had been issued before the EAW. Both documents bore the same date and were issued by the same court, but the judge said the principle of mutual trust required him to accept the warrant’s clear statement that procedures had been followed correctly.
A further objection concerned prison safety. Kerrigan cited inspection reports describing serious violence and safety concerns at HMP Pentonville and HMP Wormwood Scrubs, and said his personal circumstances put him at risk if detained in the UK. The court also considered reports on HMP Thameside and HMP Belmarsh, which described comparatively better conditions. The Minister argued that the evidence did not establish a real risk to Kerrigan personally.
Applying the principles in *Rettinger* and *Aranyosi*, the judge said the inspection reports raised serious concerns but did not show that Kerrigan would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The reports lacked data to assess the likelihood of assault, and Kerrigan had not provided objective evidence that he was at greater risk than other prisoners. The judge rejected the objection without deciding whether inter-prisoner violence alone could support an Article 3 claim.
Having rejected all objections and found the statutory requirements satisfied, the court ordered Kerrigan’s surrender to the UK authorities for the purposes set out in the EAW: prosecution.