The High Court has ordered the surrender of Derek Anthony O’Donnell to the United Kingdom for prosecution on three charges, rejecting his argument that a possible post-release travel restriction order would make surrender unlawful.
In a judgment delivered on 11 March 2014, Mr Justice Edwards made the order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. O’Donnell had not consented to surrender. The court said he was wanted for prosecution, so no issue arose about a trial in his absence. The order covers all offences in the warrant and directs surrender to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him.
The charges alleged in the warrant concern the importation of 14.8 grams of cocaine, the importation of 1.026 kilograms of herbal cannabis, and possession of a prohibited weapon designed to discharge CS gas. The judgment records that the cocaine was found in O’Donnell’s jacket pocket and that the cannabis and CS gas canister were found in the cab of a lorry he was driving when it was searched at the Channel Tunnel control zone in Coquelles, France. These are allegations for prosecution, not findings of guilt.
O’Donnell argued that, if convicted and sentenced in the UK, he might receive a travel restriction order preventing him from leaving the country for at least two years after release from custody. His affidavit described past substance-abuse problems, limited qualifications and means, and concern about being separated from his family and support network. A barrister qualified in England and Wales gave evidence that such an order was discretionary, although he considered there was a reasonable likelihood it would be imposed if O’Donnell were convicted and received a qualifying sentence.
The judge stressed that O’Donnell was presumed innocent and that several steps would have to occur before any travel restriction order could be made. The UK sentencing court would have to consider the order, hear submissions and decide it was appropriate; the judgment noted that evidence did not establish that an order could not later be reviewed or lifted if circumstances materially changed. The High Court held that the feared harm was uncertain and insufficiently connected to the surrender decision.
It also rejected the claims under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and EU free-movement law. The court said a travel restriction order would be a non-custodial sentencing measure and found no demonstrated breach of the rights relied on. It dismissed the family-life claim under Article 8, weighing O’Donnell’s private concerns against the public interest in prosecution of the serious charges. The court decided only whether surrender was permitted; it did not determine the criminal charges or whether a UK court would impose a travel restriction order.