Minister for Justice and Equality - v- Egharevba

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the Republic of France on 11 July 2013. The warrant alleged the Appellant’s participation, as part of an organised criminal gang, in money-laundering and criminal conspiracy connected to the trafficking and sexual exploitation of Nigerian women. French authorities asserted that proceeds from prostitution collected in France were funnelled through the Appellant’s Irish bank accounts and then transferred to Nigeria.

The EAW was endorsed for execution in The State on 16 July 2013 and executed on 26 July 2013 when the Appellant was arrested and brought before the High Court. The High Court rejected a single objection advanced under s. 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended) and ordered surrender to France on 24 January 2014. The High Court then certified three questions of exceptional public importance for appeal to the Supreme Court. The present judgment, delivered by Judge Denham on 25 June 2015, addresses that appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on the facts alleged, the offences fall outside the first limb of s. 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, namely the requirement that the offence be “committed in a place other than the issuing State.”
2. Whether both conjunctive conditions in s. 44 must be satisfied before surrender can be refused.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should address the two additional certified questions, which concerned hypothetical applications of Irish extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. Section 44 contains two conjunctive conditions. Unless both are met, surrender cannot be refused. The Court adopted the literal approach approved in Bailey.

2. First condition – locus of the offence: The warrant expressly states that the alleged offences “were committed in Grenoble … on French national territory and on an indivisible basis in Nigeria and in Ireland.” The High Court had found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that because the organised-crime allegations attributed conduct in France to all participants, the offences were at least partly committed in the issuing State (France). Consequently, the first limb of s. 44 was not satisfied.

3. Because the first condition failed, the second condition (whether the act constitutes an Irish offence when committed abroad) did not arise. The Court emphasised that the statutory requirements are conjunctive; failure on either is fatal to the objection.

4. Certified questions 2 and 3 invited the Court to engage in hypothetical analyses of Irish extra-territorial jurisdiction under other statutes. Citing its established practice of not answering hypothetical questions outside Article 26 references, the Court declined to consider them.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; order for surrender affirmed.

The direct consequence is that the Appellant must be surrendered to France under s. 16(1) of the 2003 Act. The judgment re-affirms, without expanding, existing precedent on the conjunctive nature of s. 44, and confirms that Irish courts will not refuse surrender merely because elements of an offence occurred trans-nationally when the issuing State attributes conduct within its territory to all co-conspirators. No new legal principle was created beyond this clarification.