A Court of Appeal judge dissented over whether Anthony Craig could be surrendered to the United Kingdom to serve the balance of a life sentence for murder after completing its 15-year punitive tariff.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2015, Hogan J said he would allow Craig’s appeal and answer in the affirmative a question certified by the High Court: whether surrender in those circumstances would contravene the Irish Constitution, particularly its protection of personal liberty. The judgment says Peart J had just delivered the majority judgment. The supplied excerpt does not set out the majority’s reasoning or the court’s formal order, so it does not establish the appeal’s final disposition.
Craig was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 15 years. The UK warrant described that minimum, or “tariff”, as the punitive part of the sentence. After it expires, continued detention depends on whether the prisoner presents a risk to the public. The warrant described review by an independent Parole Board, which may direct release or schedule further reviews.
Craig was also alleged to have escaped from H.M. Prison Sudbury in July 2002 and travelled to Ireland. Hogan J specified that the appeal did not concern surrender on the prison escape charge. It concerned surrender to serve the post-tariff balance of the murder sentence.
Hogan J reasoned that Irish law treats preventative detention as unconstitutional and that surrender would immediately place Craig into post-tariff detention under the UK sentence. He distinguished a Supreme Court case involving a UK life sentence transferred to Ireland: in that case, Irish law governed administration of the sentence after transfer. Craig’s case concerned return to the UK, where the UK regime would again apply.
He concluded that the connection between surrender and the anticipated preventative detention remained intact, and that surrender for this purpose would itself be unconstitutional under section 37(1)(b) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He acknowledged the concerns about applying Ireland’s constitutional approach to another state’s sentencing system, but said the circumstances compelled his conclusion.
The judgment excerpt records Hogan J’s dissent, not the majority’s disposition. It does not show the operative order made by the Court of Appeal.