The Supreme Court has upheld a decision to extradite a man sentenced to life imprisonment in the UK, finding that while the UK position on life sentences would be found unconstitutional in Ireland, this did not justify Ireland refusing to comply with the European Arrest Warrants (EAW).
In the UK, once a person serves the punitive portion of a life sentence they must remain in prison if they pose a risk to the public. The man in question had served close to 30 years in the UK, before coming to Ireland following release on licence. The surrender of the man was ordered by the High Court, however he appealed extradition to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme on the grounds that he would be subjected to immediate preventative detention on his return. It was argued that such surrender would be in contravention of the Irish Constitution and incompatible with the State’s obligations under the European Charter on Human Rights.
Considering the matter, Mr Justice O’Donnell observed that case law clearly demonstrated it was undesirable and inappropriate for the Court to examine foreign laws by reference to Irish Constitutional standards. The Court noted the comity of the courts was a fundamental aspect of the relationship between sovereign states. In particular, the Court referenced the constitutional requirement for friendly cooperation under Article 29, and Articles 1 and 5, which, in asserting sovereignty, require respect of the sovereignty of other jurisdictions. While the Court explicitly recognised the case could not be disposed of by the simple proposition that the Constitution only had relevance to matters within the jurisdiction, it determined it was only in limited circumstances that a refusal of surrender or return should be made. The Court noted such refusals should be limited to instances of egregious breaches of fundamental principles of the Constitution, or when something was so proximate a consequence of the court’s order and so repugnant to the Constitution to require refusal.
The Court determined it was not a case of the Irish Constitution controlling events abroad, but rather the Irish Court observing events abroad. As such, it was acceptable for the Court to examine the sentencing regime in the UK and consider the constitutional law on preventative detention within Ireland. The Court found the two systems to be similar, but acknowledged that the introduction in Ireland of a regime similar to that in the UK would not be permissible under the Irish Constitution. The Court therefore found the fundamental issue for the Court was to determine if that difference, and putative unconstitutionality, was so egregious and markedly depart from the scheme and order envisaged by the Constitution as to require the Court to refuse surrender of a person under an EAW.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and Court of Appeal on their finding that the case of Caffrey v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison was dispositive of this case on the basis that Caffrey does not conclude that a UK sentence as managed in that jurisdiction is compatible with the Constitution. The Court found the regime did not require a refusal to surrender, as it did not constitute a fundamental defect in the justice system. The Court noted that unlike the Irish Constitution, the ECHR applies with full force in the UK. As such, the only question to be determined was if the requesting state would comply with its own obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, the Court was entitled to apply a presumption that the national court of the requesting state was best placed to make a determination as to compatibility, at least in the first instance. The Court was therefore satisfied that the provision of information and the capability to review or appeal a decision to recall, both of which apply in this instance, was sufficient to comply with any requirement of fair procedures under both the Irish Constitution and the Convention.
Click here for the judgement.