High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This matter comes before the Court by way of a special summons in which the Plaintiff claims an Order for his release pursuant to Section 50 of the Extradition Acts, 1965/1994.

2. The uncontested facts of the case are that the Applicant was arrested on foot of a request for his extradition to England on foot of a warrant for his arrest issued on the 9th February, 1996 by Glenys Game, a Justice of the North East London area. The Applicant was brought before the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on 22nd May, 1996 and was remanded by the Court in custody until the 29th May, 1996. Bail was set by Order of the High Court on 29th May, 1996.

3. The matter came before the District Court on 12th June, 1996 and following a hearing of evidence and legal submissions the learned District Judge ordered the extradition of the Applicant.

4. The Applicant claims that this Order was bad on the grounds that the offence concerned in the extradition proceedings does not correspond with any offence under the law in this jurisdiction.

5. The warrant details the alleged offence on which extradition is sought in the following terms:-

6. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the corresponding offence in this jurisdiction is the offence of attempting to obtain money by false pretences.

7. I accept as the law that part of the Judgment of Walsh J. in Wyatt -v- McLoughlin 1974 I.R. 378 where at p.395 he says:-

8. It is clear from the Judgment of Walsh J. that a Court in Ireland in considering extradition cases is not concerned with the construction of English Law and its sole concern is to be "satisfied that the Acts constituting the particular offence for which extradition is sought are Acts which, if committed within this jurisdiction, would constitute a criminal offence".

9. In my view, therefore, an appropriate way in which to carry out this examination is to identify the elements of the offence in this jurisdiction with which it is alleged the offence in England corresponds and having done so ascertain if these ingredients are reflected in the Acts identified in the alleged offence.

10. The Irish offence which, it is alleged, corresponds to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981 in England is attempting to obtain money by false pretences contrary to Common Law.

11. The substantive offence of obtaining money by false pretences is created by Section 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916 which, paraphrased, reads:-

12. Accordingly, it appears to me that the offence of attempting to obtain money by false pretences contrary to Common Law has as its ingredients:-

13. Comparing these ingredients with the alleged facts in the warrant there is:-

14. In my view, all the ingredients of the offence in this jurisdiction exist and are to be found in fact alleged in the offence alleged in the warrant. In the words of Mr. Justice Walsh in Wyatt -v- McLoughlin I find that:-

15. I find that the crime alleged does contain these facts.

16. It is proper that I should refer to the Affidavit filed in this matter sworn by Detective Sergeant Clive Ingram on 19th February, 1996 as significant argument as been addressed to me in relation to this Affidavit. In my view, this Affidavit relates entirely to the strength of the case against the Accused and does not assist the Court in determining whether the offence alleged in the warrant corresponds to an offence in this jurisdiction.

17. I accordingly refuse the relief sought in the summons.