The High Court has refused Eric Eoin Marques leave to seek judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s order directing his surrender to the United States, holding that the minister was not required to seek the Director of Public Prosecutions’ reasons for not prosecuting him and had adequately explained her decision.
Ms Justice Donnelly delivered the judgment on 30 November 2017. The proceedings were a “telescoped” application for leave to apply for judicial review, heard on 25 and 26 October. Marques sought to quash the surrender order and challenge the minister’s handling and explanation of her decision.
Marques had been arrested in August 2013 under a provisional warrant following a US request. He had unsuccessfully challenged extradition through the High Court and Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. After those proceedings, the minister made an order under section 33 of the Extradition Act 1965 on 1 June 2017 directing his surrender.
In a letter to the minister, Marques’s lawyers said he would plead guilty in Ireland to what they described as the same offences and argued that the DPP’s decision not to prosecute should be explained. They also raised his personal circumstances and concerns about the sentence and prison conditions he might face in the US. These were submissions made on his behalf, not findings by the court.
The judge held that section 15(2) gives the minister discretion to refuse extradition when the DPP has decided not to prosecute, but does not create a right for the requested person to avoid extradition. The provision did not require the minister to obtain the DPP’s reasons. Requiring the minister to examine the basis of the prosecution decision would conflict with the DPP’s statutory independence, the judgment said.
The minister’s response said she had considered the issues raised, regarded it as neither necessary nor appropriate to seek an explanation from the DPP, and took account of the earlier court proceedings. The judge found that response sufficient in light of the nature of the minister’s residual discretion and the issues raised in the letter. She also concluded that the minister had taken relevant considerations into account.
The court refused the relief sought in the amended grounds. It did not determine the underlying US criminal allegations; the ruling concerned the legality and explanation of the minister’s surrender decision.