Extradition under TCAWs: Establishing a New Standard of Good Faith in UK Surrender Cases

Introduction

The Judgment in Minister for Justice v Curtin (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 145) delivered by Mr. Justice Patrick McGrath on 21 February 2025 in the High Court of Ireland sets a significant precedent in extradition proceedings under Trade and Cooperation Agreement warrants (TCAWs) issued by the United Kingdom. The case concerns the application for the surrender of Richard Curtin—convicted in the Central Criminal Court, London—for manslaughter, wherein the applicant, the Minister for Justice, seeks Curtin’s return under a TCAW.

Key issues addressed in the Judgment include:

The sufficiency and clarity of documentation accompanying the TCAW;
Compliance with the statutory provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended);
The impact of errors in ticking designated boxes on the warrant;
The role of additional information provided by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); and
How fundamental rights, including the rights to fair treatment and freedom of travel, are safeguarded under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in the context of UK extradition requests.

Summary of the Judgment

In his detailed judgement, Mr. Justice McGrath considered both the technical and substantial aspects of the TCAW. The Court:

Accepted that the warrant, despite certain drafting errors (such as incorrectly ticked boxes in Sections E.1 and H), had been issued by a recognized judicial authority and met the statutory requirements under s. 10 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2023.
Found that the additional documentation provided by the CPS, in response to the Court's s. 20 information requests, was reliable and could be considered in light of the governing principle of good faith.
Rejected various objections put forward by the Respondent regarding issues of extra-territoriality, clarity of the imposed sentence, and aspects pertaining to certification under Section 11 of the 2003 Act.
Clarified the application of the presumption of good faith when requesting and receiving supplementary information from a non-issuing judicial authority for TCAWs, especially given that the mutual trust and confidence principles (applicable to EAWs from EU Member States) do not apply with respect to the United Kingdom.
Dismissed the claims that surrender would potentially breach the Respondent’s fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly in relation to inhuman treatment and his right to travel upon future release under licence conditions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment discusses and relies on a number of precedents integral to the development of extradition law in Ireland:

Minister for Justice v Harrison [2020] IECA 159 and Minister for Justice v Bradshaw: These cases were cited to address the issue of the admissibility of additional information received from the CPS. The Court’s reliance on these decisions underscores that additional information, even if not received directly from the issuing judicial authority, should be given due weight if provided on behalf of that authority.
Minister for Justice v AW [2019] IEHC 251: In this case, Donnelly J emphasised that the Court may accept information provided by a delegation from the issuing authority and stressed the overarching significance of the principle of mutual recognition in extradition requests.
ML (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen) [2018] C‑220/18 PPU: The CJEU decision provided a framework for accepting assurances and information coming from non-judicial sources, provided that an overall factual analysis supports the credibility and reliability of that information.
Additional references to Alchaster [2024], Minister for Justice v McAuley [2025] IEHC 28, and recent UK case law further reinforce the context regarding mutual trust, good faith, and the interpretation of TCAW procedural requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning in this case is notable for its careful separation of technical errors from the substantive basis of the warrant. Key elements in the reasoning include:

Reliance on Statutory Provisions: The Judge meticulously examines sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, particularly s. 20 and s. 11, ensuring that even with the noted drafting errors, the critical functions of the Act are not undermined. It was emphasized that the statutory regime permits the Court to look beyond mere formal defects when the underlying facts support a valid extradition request.
Role of Additional Information: The decision reaffirms that the Court is authorized to consider additional documentation provided by the CPS. In weighing this information, the Court adopted a broad principle of good faith that applies equally to additional evidence from any designated authority—even when the traditional principle of mutual trust and confidence (associated with EU Member States) does not extend to the United Kingdom post-Brexit.
Assessment of Fundamental Rights: In addressing objections raised concerning the potential breach of fundamental rights (under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the ECHR), the Court applied a “one-step test”. Unlike two-stage tests applicable under the mutual trust framework, this test directly assesses the risk to the individual’s rights on surrender. Ultimately, the Court found that the Respondent’s submissions, lacking supportive evidence, did not substantiate claims of a real risk.
Clarification on Territoriality and Sentence Clarity: The Court’s analysis carefully disentangles confused statements in the warrant regarding extra-territoriality and the nature of the sentence imposed. It affirmed that the offence having been committed entirely within England, the erroneous ticked boxes did not impede the correspondence analysis between English and Irish law. Moreover, the evidence confirmed a 10‑year sentence with 6 years remaining, dismissing any insinuation of a life sentence.

Impact on Future Cases and the Relevant Area of Law

This Judgment introduces several impactful legal principles:

Expanded Judicial Discretion: The decision sets a precedent in allowing Irish courts to confidently rely on additional information provided by bodies such as the CPS when evaluating TCAWs from the United Kingdom. With the explicit rejection of any dismissal solely on grounds of non-issuance directly by a judicial authority, this expands judicial discretion when applying statutory information‐request powers.
Refinement of the Good Faith Standard: The ruling reinforces that even when traditional EU-based mutual trust and confidence are inapplicable, a robust presumption of good faith remains central. This ensures that extradition decisions will be forward‐looking and grounded in a holistic evaluation of all available evidence.
Clarification of Drafting Errors: By addressing and “looking behind” clerical errors such as mis-ticked boxes, the judgment provides future courts with guidance on how to treat technical defects in extradition warrants. It underscores that when the underlying facts remain intact and corroborated by additional documentation, such defects cannot form a sole basis for refusing surrender.
Balancing Fundamental Rights: The court’s adoption of a simplified “one-step” test for assessing potential breaches of fundamental rights in non-EU extradition requests may well influence future cases where similar objections are raised concerning conditions of detention and liberty restrictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex legal concepts arise in this Judgment. The following explanations clarify these terms for easier understanding:

TCAW (Trade and Cooperation Agreement Warrant): A warrant issued under the framework provided by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom following Brexit. It is similar in purpose to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) but is subject to different procedural safeguards.
Mutual Trust and Confidence: A principle originating in EU extradition law which presumes that a requesting state’s legal system provides adequate protections for human rights. Post-Brexit, this presumption does not automatically apply to requests from the United Kingdom.
Good Faith Principle: Even in the absence of the mutual trust presumption, a court may still rely on the overall reliability and honesty of the provided evidence. In this case, it allowed acceptance of additional information from the CPS.
Correspondence Analysis: A process to determine whether the conduct described in an extradition warrant would, if committed locally, constitute an offence under domestic law. This ensures that there is a sufficient legal link between the alleged conduct and the domestic offence.
One-Step Test for Fundamental Rights: Unlike the two-stage test (which applies when mutual trust is present), this method directly evaluates whether an individual’s rights would be at risk if extradited, without first assuming compliance from the requesting state.

Conclusion

In summary, the Minister for Justice v Curtin judgment establishes a new benchmark in the procedural and substantive handling of extradition requests under TCAWs from the United Kingdom. By recognizing the legitimacy of supplementary information provided by non-judicial entities, clarifying the treatment of technical drafting errors, and redefining the approach to fundamental rights objections through a one-step test, the Court has laid down a significant precedent.

This decision not only furnishes clear guidance for future extradition cases involving the United Kingdom but also reinforces the overarching principle that fairness and good faith must underpin the extradition process—even in the absence of the mutual trust presumption. In doing so, it secures a more nuanced and just balance between public interest in extradition and the protection of individual rights.