Judgement on second Ian Bailey Extradition request expected in July


Mr Bailey (60) of The Prairie, Liscaha, Schull, west Cork, controverts any involvement in the death of Ms du Plantier, who was found dead outside her holiday peaceful in Schull in December 1996.

French authorities previously sought the surrender of Mr Bailey in 2010 but this germaneness was refused by the Supreme Court in 2012.

A second extradition request was transmitted to Ireland abide year, seeking the surrender of Mr Bailey for alleged voluntary homicide.

In the Boisterous Court today, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said he would give judgment on July 24 next on the essentially issues discussed at hearings in May.

Mr Justice Hunt said he would earn clear to the parties what arguments he regarded as “left over” which may bear to be the subject of further hearing.

These include legal matters empathizing to the issuing judicial authority, among others. Lawyers for the State had undertook an adjournment. 

Opposing surrender, counsel for Mr Bailey, Garrett Simons SC, express last month that his client had a “very straightforward and obvious suit”.

Mr Simons said there was “no way around” the Supreme Court decision in 2012 which identified an “unadulterated jurisdictional bar” to Mr Bailey’s extradition to France in relation to the alleged offence.

He said split 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which implemented the European Framework Decisiveness on extradition between member states, was determined by the Supreme Court as an “faultless bar” to Mr Bailey’s surrender and that continued to apply.

A five-judge panel of the Uppermost Court refused to surrender Mr Bailey in 2012 and four of the five rates upheld Mr Bailey’s argument that section 44 prohibits turn over because the alleged offence was committed outside French territory and Irish law does not brook prosecution for the same offence when committed outside its territory by a non-Irish native.

Applying for the surrender of Mr Bailey, counsel for the Justice Minister, Robert Barron SC, state the State was asking the High Court to refer the Supreme Court’s 4-1 illustration of Section 44 to the European Courts of Justice for determination.

Mr Barron put about O’Donnell J, the single dissenting Supreme Court judge on the Section 44 significance, was correct in his interpretation of the framework decision and the act; That the majority Supreme Court translation was “incorrect” and that it would be appropriate to have a reference from the Strident Court to the European Courts on the matter, Mr Barron submitted.

He said it was “recognised by the Chief Court” that there were two interpretations and the only way it could be concluded conclusively was by the court in Luxembourg.

Mr Justice Tony Hunt remarked that “VIP, somewhere” had apparently decided that the Supreme Court got it “catastrophically vile” and the way to correct it is to get the European Courts to tell the Supreme Court they got it out of sync a go astray.

It appeared as though the application was an “exploration of a method by which the Supreme Court decree might be revisited,” Mr Justice Hunt remarked.

Mr Barron agreed his submittal was that the High Court should refer the matter to Europe because the Unexcelled Court got it wrong. However, “with respect,” Mr Barron said, nonentity was trying to “usurp” the courts and there was “no ulterior purpose”.

He stressed he was completely making legal submissions.

Mr Barron agreed the High Court did not dearth to go further than O’Donnell J’s dissenting view but denied he was asking the Soprano Court to decide the Supreme Court majority got it wrong.

Mr Justice Through with a fine-tooth comb asked Mr Barron what the French authorities had been doing between the Highest Court’s judgment in 2012 and the decision to issue a new warrant in respect of Mr Bailey in 2016.

“When did Mr Bailey turn a triable person rather than a chargeable person,” the judge sought.

Mr Barron said today that a request had been made of French jurisdictions for more information but that a reply was not yet forthcoming.

Mr Simons further submitted that it was an “rebuke of process” for the Minister, who has litigated an issue all the way to the Supreme Court, to seek to litigate the outflow again, adding that it was in the public interest that there be certitude to litigation.

He said the Minister was insulting the Irish courts, was not respecting the hegemony of the Irish courts and was misunderstanding European law.

It was “extraordinary” that the Minister does not say the Highest Court was wrong, Mr Simons said. The most the Minister could say was that Detachment 44 was “unclear” but that could not provide a basis for setting aside a First-rate Court judgment.

He said case law showed there was an obligation on a dominant authority, in this case the Minister, to exercise a level of discernment with reverence to extradition requests.

He referred to the right of an individual to be free from harassment and parole from “vexatious litigation”.

Mr Simons said the public interest in smoothing extradition requests was to avoid the creation of “safe havens” but Mr Bailey had electrified in Ireland for 25 years and was always at hazard of being prosecuted.

The avowed offence took place here and Mr Bailey would have been charged here “had there been any evidence”.

He submitted extracts from the ‘Fennelly Commission’ set up in torchlight of the recording of phone calls to An Garda Siochanna, said that was “depart of the background” and noted that the Minister had “nothing to say about that”.

More to his submission that the application to surrender Mr Bailey was an “abuse of process”, Mr Simons particularized the concerns expressed by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, that the Garda examination into the death of Ms du Plantier was thoroughly flawed and prejudicial

He said the past DPP’s concerns were shocking and struck a blow against the fundamentals of the direct of law in Ireland.

One would expect a robust response from the Minister to those touches in this application, Mr Simons said, but instead, the Minister “washes her employees of it” and says “allegations of Garda misconduct” were “not matters of relevance”.

That was a unexceptionally inadequate response to “serious allegations put by a former DPP” and the High Court was “blithely” being blabbed “nothing to see here”.

Mr Simons said there was a point when positiveness and confidence between nations in relation to extradition requests “breaks down”.

It was not in any degree the intention of the European extradition framework decision for countries to mount prosecutions where one’s own autonomous prosecutor has characterised the investigation as thoroughly flawed and prejudicial or to rely on basis “condemned” by those authorities, Mr Simons said. That’s not trust and conviction and it was an abuse of process to do it, he said.

Presumably, he said, the French authorities were current to seek to rely on the fruits of the “flawed” garda investigation in their own examination, Mr Simons said, and he referred to the late Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman’s observes in the Supreme Court about an Irish resident (Mr Bailey), long located in Ireland, being “forcibly” delivered to France for an offence allegedly allocated in Ireland.

Counsel for the Minister for Justice, Robert Barron SC, said there were no sets for criticism of the Minister.

Mr Barron said extradition was a process between discriminating authorities and the Minister’s role is to produce warrants to the courts for endorsement. In two shakes of a lambs tail b together the warrant is received it must be presented to the court for endorsement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *