The Supreme Court dismissed the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s appeal and declined to order Michael Martin Connolly’s delivery to Spain under a European Arrest Warrant. In a judgment delivered on 1 May 2014, Mr Justice Hardiman concluded that the warrant did not make clear how many offences were involved or what they were.
The appeal followed a High Court order refusing delivery on 19 December 2012. The Minister argued that the Supreme Court could consider only the point of law certified by the High Court. The Court rejected that limitation: because the required certificate had been granted, it could consider other issues raised in the High Court proceedings, including the objection to the warrant’s description of the alleged offences.
The warrant referred to a Spanish court order concerning an alleged offence of endangerment of public health under Articles 368 and 369 of the Spanish Penal Code. Elsewhere, it said that it related to “2 Offences” and ticked boxes for “participation in a criminal organisation” and “illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Those were different in nature from the public-health offence.
After Irish authorities sought clarification, a Spanish authority said in a letter dated 3 March 2010 that the warrant concerned an alleged offence against public health punishable under Article 368. The judgment said the response did not explain the reference to two offences or the two additional offences listed in the warrant. The suggestion made for Mr Connolly that those listings might refer to aggravating circumstances was treated as speculation, not as an explanation supplied by the Spanish authorities.
The Court said the European Arrest Warrant procedure required unambiguous clarity about the number and nature of the offences. That information was necessary, the judgment said, to assess the statutory objection raised in the case and to apply the rule of specialty, which limits the offences for which a surrendered person may be tried. Mr Justice Hardiman said a court asked to order compulsory delivery for trial abroad had a duty to establish clearly which offences, and how many, were at issue.
The Court therefore dismissed the Minister’s appeal. It did not order Mr Connolly’s delivery to Spain.