The Court of Appeal has ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Francis Lanigan’s appeal against an order for his surrender to Northern Ireland because the High Court had refused to certify an appeal. It ordered that the Minister for Justice and Equality’s motion to strike out the uncertified appeal be granted.
The appeal concerned a High Court order for surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Court of Appeal considered only whether a certificate was required for the appeal. It did not decide the underlying objections to surrender or the separate constitutional proceedings Lanigan had brought.
Lanigan’s objections included a fear that his life would be at risk if returned to prison in Northern Ireland. The High Court had considered information supplied following requests under section 20 of the Act and concluded that the material was admissible. It found that the Northern Ireland authorities could and would take reasonable measures to safeguard his life. Lanigan disputed the admissibility of that information and argued that the procedures raised fair-hearing and constitutional issues.
He also argued that the surrender order should have been postponed until his challenge to the constitutionality of section 20 was determined. The High Court refused to delay perfecting the order. It also refused to certify points of law for appeal under section 16(11), which permits an appeal only if the High Court certifies that a point of exceptional public importance is involved and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
In the Court of Appeal, Lanigan argued that no certificate was needed because his appeal raised constitutional issues. The court rejected that argument. It said that appeals involving questions about the validity of a law under the Constitution fall outside the certificate requirement, but the grounds in Lanigan’s notice did not challenge the validity of the Act or any of its provisions. Complaints that procedures were constitutionally unfair did not, by themselves, amount to such a challenge.
The court said the certificate was therefore required and, because it had been refused, the notice of appeal was invalid. It granted the motion on the ground that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction. The judgment did not resolve the pending constitutional challenge or determine the substantive grounds against surrender.