The Minister for Justice and Equality v Butor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to The Republic of Croatia pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 9th October 2018. The EAW concerned enforcement of a two-year imprisonment sentence originally imposed on 8th June 2015, with two years remaining to be served. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 8th July 2022, resulting in the Respondent's arrest and appearance before the Court. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent and found no statutory bars to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended). The Respondent objected to surrender on several grounds, including issues related to correspondence, service of documents, prison conditions, and alleged breaches of fundamental rights.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the offences described in the EAW correspond with offences under the law of the State, specifically theft, attempted theft, criminal damage, and unauthorised interference with a vehicle.
2. Whether the Respondent’s surrender would breach section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, particularly regarding the fairness of appeal proceedings conducted in absentia.
3. Whether there is a real risk that surrender would expose the Respondent to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to section 37(1)(c) of the Act of 2003 and relevant human rights provisions.
4. Whether surrender would disproportionately interfere with the Respondent’s or his family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or equivalent constitutional or EU rights.
5. Whether surrender is precluded by any other provision of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The offences in the EAW correspond to theft contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act 2001, unauthorised interference with a vehicle contrary to section 113 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and attempted theft under common law.
• The Respondent was properly served with the relevant decisions and was represented by legal counsel at trial and on appeal, satisfying procedural fairness requirements under section 45 of the Act of 2003.
• The assurances provided by the issuing State regarding prison conditions are sufficient to negate any real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment upon surrender.
• The Respondent’s rights of defence were not breached as the appeal proceeded in accordance with the law of the issuing State, including the possibility of in absentia hearings.
• Surrender is not precluded by any other statutory provisions.

Respondent's Arguments

• Disputes that the offences correspond to theft under domestic law due to lack of demonstrated loss to the owner in each incident.
• Contends that surrender would breach section 45 of the Act of 2003 because he was not informed of the appeal hearing date, not produced at the hearing, and his legal representative was also absent.
• Claims that prison conditions in the issuing State pose a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, violating his rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and related constitutional and EU provisions.
• Asserts that surrender would infringe his and his family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and related constitutional and EU rights.
• Argues that the State failed to provide for him to serve his sentence domestically.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by confirming the identity of the Respondent and the validity of the EAW. It then examined the correspondence between the offences described in the EAW and domestic law, concluding that the offences of theft, attempted theft, and unauthorised interference with vehicles were sufficiently established. The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that theft correspondence failed due to lack of demonstrated loss, finding the particulars and context sufficient to establish dishonesty, appropriation, and loss.

Regarding section 45 of the Act of 2003, the Court analysed the procedural history of the appeal, including service of documents and presence at hearings. It accepted that the Respondent was represented by counsel who took the appeal and that under the issuing State’s law, appeals may proceed in absentia unless requested otherwise. The Court applied the principles from Zarnescu, concluding the Respondent’s defence rights were not breached or waived and that the appeal process was fair.

On the issue of prison conditions, the Court considered the Respondent’s submissions and country-of-origin material, alongside assurances provided by the issuing State. It found the assurances credible, addressing concerns such as cell size, hygiene, medical care, and protection against inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court found no real risk to the Respondent’s fundamental rights, applying the Aranyosi and Mursic principles.

The Court noted that objections based on family or personal rights under Article 8 and failure to provide for domestic sentence service were not pursued at hearing and lacked evidential basis.

Ultimately, the Court was satisfied that no statutory or constitutional bars to surrender existed, that the Respondent’s rights were adequately protected, and that surrender was lawful and appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The Court ordered the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Croatia.

The decision directly results in the Respondent’s extradition pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant. The Court found no breach of procedural fairness, fundamental rights, or statutory provisions that would preclude surrender. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling applied established principles concerning correspondence of offences, procedural safeguards in appeal hearings, and assessment of prison conditions in extradition contexts.