Minister for Justice v McDermott (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Minister for Justice ("the Minister") applied under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended ("the Act of 2003"), seeking an order directing the surrender of the Respondent to the United Kingdom pursuant to a Trade and Cooperation Agreement arrest warrant ("the TCA warrant"). The warrant was issued on 19 April 2024 by a District Judge in Belfast Magistrates' Court in Northern Ireland, as the issuing judicial authority.

The warrant relates to two offences: the unlawful and malicious wounding of a male individual with intent to cause grievous bodily harm at a park in Derry/Londonderry on 20 October 2021, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ("the assault offence"); and criminal damage to a car owned by the victim's father on the same date, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 ("the criminal damage offence"). The assault offence carries a potential life imprisonment sentence, and the criminal damage offence carries a potential sentence of up to 14 years imprisonment.

The warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court on 10 June 2024. Additional information was requested from the issuing authority and provided in June 2024. The warrant was executed on 15 July 2024, and the Respondent was brought before the High Court, which fixed a date for the surrender application. Points of objection to surrender were filed on behalf of the Respondent, but no supporting affidavit was sworn. The surrender application was heard on 4 September 2024.

The background facts, as described in the TCA warrant and supporting documents, recount an incident in the early hours of 22 October 2021, when the victim attended an emergency department with injuries allegedly sustained in an assault involving two male assailants, one of whom was named as the Respondent. The victim sustained multiple injuries and damage was caused to his vehicle during the incident.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the information provided in the TCA warrant and additional material satisfies the statutory requirements under section 11(1A)(f) of the Act of 2003 regarding the specification of the circumstances of the criminal damage offence, including the alleged degree of involvement of the Respondent.
2. Whether surrender should be refused under section 42 of the Act of 2003 on the basis that the Respondent is being prosecuted in the State for an offence consisting in whole or in part of the acts alleged in the TCA warrant.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that the TCA warrant and additional information fail to specify adequately the circumstances of the criminal damage offence, particularly the degree of his involvement, thus not meeting the requirements of section 11(1A)(f) of the Act of 2003 ("the s. 11 objection").
• The Respondent argued that surrender for the prosecution of the assault offence might breach section 42 of the Act of 2003, as there is a possibility of prosecution in the State for the same or similar acts, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has not clarified whether such prosecution is contemplated ("the s. 42 objection").

Minister's Arguments

• The Minister submitted that the information provided satisfies the statutory requirements, including sufficient detail to infer joint enterprise participation in the criminal damage offence.
• The Minister argued that section 42 only permits refusal of surrender where the requested person is actually being prosecuted in the State, not where prosecution is merely a theoretical possibility, and no evidence of prosecution exists.
• The Minister further submitted that the offences specified correspond to offences under the law of the State and that the surrender is not prohibited under any relevant provisions of the Act of 2003.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the s. 11 objection concerning the sufficiency of information about the criminal damage offence. It explained that the statutory requirements under section 11(1A)(f) aim to enable the executing judicial authority to endorse the warrant, assess correspondence of offences, and inform the requested person of the allegations. The court emphasized that there is no requirement to establish a prima facie case or provide detailed evidential material; rather, sufficient information to consider relevant matters is required.

In assessing the information, the court found that the criminal damage offence was alleged to have occurred in the context of a joint enterprise involving the Respondent and another assailant. It rejected the Respondent's argument that the information was insufficient to show more than mere presence, noting that joint enterprise can be inferred from the circumstances, including the Respondent's active assault on the victim and attempt to drag him from the vehicle. Thus, the court concluded that the information met the statutory requirements.

Regarding correspondence, the court accepted the Minister's submission that the offences alleged correspond to offences under the law of the State: assault causing harm and criminal damage, respectively. Therefore, surrender could not be refused on grounds of lack of correspondence under section 38(1A).

On the s. 42 objection, the court clarified that surrender may only be refused if the requested person is actually being prosecuted in the State for the relevant offence, not if prosecution is merely a possibility. There was no evidence of any prosecution against the Respondent in the State. Accordingly, the court rejected the s. 42 objection.

The court then confirmed satisfaction of the necessary proofs under section 16(1) of the Act of 2003, including identity, endorsement of the warrant, absence of convictions in absentia, and absence of any prohibitions on surrender under the Act.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED the surrender of the Respondent to the United Kingdom pursuant to section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The order directs the surrender to a person duly authorised by the United Kingdom to receive him.

The direct effect is that the Respondent will be surrendered to the UK authorities for prosecution on the two offences specified in the TCA warrant. The court did not set any new precedent beyond applying established legal principles regarding the sufficiency of information in TCA warrants, correspondence of offences, and the conditions for refusal under section 42. No broader implications were discussed beyond the application of statutory provisions to the facts of this case.