Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

Last updated

Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameDundon -v- The Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Decided19 December 2019
Citation(s)[2005] IESC 83; [2006] 1 IR 518
Case history
Appealed from High Court
Appealed to Irish Supreme Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Denham J. Geoghegan J. Fennelly J., Hardiman J, Murray C.J
Case opinions
Decision by Denham J.
Concur/dissent Fennelly J. Geoghegan J. Denham J.
Keywords

Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 IR 518, was an Irish legal case in which the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom by Irish citizen Kenneth Dundon. The case is important in Irish law as Kenneth Dundon was the first man to be extradited under the European Arrest Warrants Act 2003 in Ireland. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

On the night of 8 October 2003, the appellant Kenneth Dundon went to the flat of Christopher Jacobs in Hoxton, North London. [4] Dundon's wife Anne McCarthy was staying in the flat with Jacobs at this particular time. [4] Dundon was armed with a knife and proceeded to stab Jacobs in the face and neck, causing him to choke to death on his own blood. [4] McCarthy claims to have witnessed the murder and told police that it was her husband who harmed Jacobs. Dundon was later arrested in London, but denied the allegations made by his wife. He was released on bail, and pending further investigation by the police he moved home to Limerick, Ireland. [4] On 29 January 2004, a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued against Dundon by the Thames Magistrates Court in England. The warrant was 'endorsed for execution' by the High Court in Dublin on 2 February 2004. [1] He was subsequently arrested in Limerick on 11 February 2004, facing the charge of murder. [4]

On 11 February 2004, Dundon was brought before the High Court and remanded in 'custody pursuant to s. 13(5) of the Act of 2003, to 27 February 2004, being the date fixed for the purposes of s. 16'. [1] On 27 February the application under s. 16 was opened and adjourned, and Dundon remained in custody throughout March 2004, and a resumed hearing date was fixed on 25 March 2004. [1] The Supreme Court upheld the High Court order on 16 March 2005. [1] In the High Court, O'Caoimh J gave a reserved judgement on 14 May 2004, deciding that Dundon was to be surrendered to Thames Magistrates Court. [1]

On 5 May 2005, O'Sullivan J. of the High Court, argued that the Applicant was detained in accordance with the law. [1]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The appeal to the Supreme Court arose on 6 May 2005 when Dundon claimed he was in unlawful custody because time limits established under the European arrest warrant scheme were breached and he therefore should be released. [1] This argument was based on two documents, the Council Framework Decision and the EAW Act of 2003. Dundon submitted that the High court 'erred in its interpretation' and 'failed to draw a reasonable interpretation' of these articles. [1] He further submitted his grounds for appeal on the basis that the High Court was mistaken in its decision to surrender him due to the decision not being 'taken within the stipulated time limits' of the documents. [1] The Applicant argued that he 'continued to be lawful in the absence of an express provision requiring his release.' [1] The grounds for appeal were heard on 26 July 2005 by the Supreme Court, but further documents were required alongside submissions and judgement was reserved on 4 October 2005. [1]

Concluding Judgments

This was delivered on 19 December 2005 by Denham J, who agreed that the appeal would fail and the original decision by the High Court must be upheld. [1] The Council Framework Decision suggested that the decision 'on the request be made within 60 days, which time limit could be extended for a further 30 days'. [1] The 2003 Act urges the matter to be dealt with in a specific time frame, and requires the High Court to inform the Central Authority and the issuing judicial authority that an order has not been made within the time limit. [1] Denham J. argued that the court had a 'duty to ensure that there are fair procedures, which encompass all issues going to due process' which includes issues such as allocating time to 'obtain undertakings from the issuing judicial authority' or 'enabling time to appeal' which occurred in this case. [1] Denham J. further highlighted that the rights of the applicant were 'preserved' but the expected time limits were 'exceeded'. [1] The Judge argued that there was no conflict between the Council Framework Decision and the EWA Act of 2003. [1] He further stipulated to the Court the time limit is of 60 days with a further 30 days for the making up of a 'surrender order', but he suggested that this is merely a 'strongly worded recommendation' in the 2003 Act. [1] Furthermore, the due process remains subject to ensuring fairness and access to the courts which includes the right to appeal. Also, with no mandated time limit of prior to the 'final order' it was decided by the Court that the applicant was not being unlawfully detained. [1] The Court acknowledged that the Applicant exercised all his rights of access to the courts in full including his right to contest the issue and appeal. [1]

Concurrences

Geoghegan J commented that the case had highlighted " serious issues relating to the effectiveness and enforcement of the European arrest warrant" [1] within the jurisdiction of Ireland and that he would:

Agree with counsel for the Appellant that where there is an ambiguity in legislation as to whether the Oireachtas intended in a given instance detention or freedom, there is a prima facie presumption in favour of an interpretation involving freedom. But just because some particular aspect is not expressly spelled out in an Act, it does not necessarily mean that there is an ambiguity as far as interpretation is concerned. [1]

In view of the duty on the courts to interpret the Act in light of its whole context and subsections, [1] Geoghegan J ultimately agreed with the High Court decision. Finally Fennelly J. concurring with the previous judges, stated that he did 'not believe that the Appellant can derive any right to be released at the end of the sixty-day period from either the Act of 2003 or from the Framework Decision.' [1] Furthermore, he clarified that:

The European Arrest Warrant is itself a novel instrument. It was adopted in the wake of the devastatingly tragic events of 11th September 2001. The drafting is extraordinarily loose and vague, particularly in the manner in which offences are defined. The Court, on this appeal, has to consider an Act of the Oireachtas which implements a Framework Decision adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). However, Ireland has not made the declaration which is necessary under Article 35 of the TEU before the Court of Justice can exercise the interpretative jurisdiction envisaged by that article. [1]

Hence, Supreme Court decided this question without any guidance from the Court of Justice.

Conclusion

Denham J. concluded that the time limit issue did not arise in this case, and the appeal was dismissed by the entire Supreme Court composition. [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period. It is a simplified cross-border judicial surrender method, and has replaced the lengthy extradition procedures that used to exist between member states. The EAW has been in force since 1 January 2004 in all Member States.

The Ciarán Tobin extradition case concerns requests for the extradition of Irish businessman Francis Ciarán Tobin from Ireland to Hungary. Tobin is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Hungarian authorities after he was found guilty of causing serious bodily harm by negligent driving when his car went out of control killing two Hungarian children in the village of Leányfalu near Budapest in April 2000. He was tried in his absence after he failed to return from Ireland for his trial.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey[2012] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held they did not have the jurisdiction to order the surrender of a non-Irish citizen for the commission of a crime committed in Ireland. Ian Bailey was accused of murdering a French citizen in Ireland. The French judicial authorities requested the extradition of Bailey from Ireland to France so to question him about the crime. However, the issue in this case was that Bailey is not a French citizen, rather his nationality is British. This case dealt with an unprecedented question of law as usually the person requested by the issuing state is a national of that state. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where Bailey was a British national yet the French authorities requested for his extradition. Nevertheless, the Court decided that Bailey could not be surrendered because the French had not actually charged him with a crime.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny[2009] IESC 48, was an Irish Supreme Court case. The court found that a European extradition can be applied if the offense is very similar to an offense in Irish statute.

<i>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological donor, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Dimbo v Minister for Justice</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

The case of Dimbo v Minister for Justice[2008] IESC 26; [2008] 27 ILT 231; [2008] 5 JIC 0101 was a Supreme Court that held that when deciding to make a deportation order in relation to the parents of an Irish born citizen under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the state must consider facts that are specific to the individual child, his or her age, current educational progress, development and opportunities and his/her attachment to the community.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>DB v The Minister for Health</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DB v The Minister for Health[2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>MJELR v Rettinger</i> Irish Supreme Court case

MJELR v Rettinger[2010] IESC 45, [2010] 3 IR 783, was a case in which the Irish Supreme Court ruled that to resist the application of a European Arrest Warrant on the basis that it would result in treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the wanted individual must offer substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be exposed to a real risk of such treatment.

<i>F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another</i> Irish Supreme Court case

F.X. v The Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital and Another[2014] IESC 1; [2014] 1 IR 280 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court "clarified two important points about the habeas corpus jurisdiction":

  1. that the High Court's jurisdiction does lie in respect of detention orders made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction; and
  2. although the Constitution does not allow for stays to be placed on orders of habeas corpus, "orders can be made for controlling the release of persons who are incapable of protecting themselves."
<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd</i> (No 6) Irish Supreme Court case

Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] IESC 15; [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland. During this case the Supreme Court considered:

  1. whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to set aside its own previous order;
  2. whether an appellant must show real likelihood of bias or whether reasonable apprehension of bias suffices; and
  3. whether a prior relationship of legal advisor and client would disqualify a judge.
<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>OFarrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison, [2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 IR 619 is a reported Irish Supreme Court decision. The Court, split four-three dismissed an appeal from the State over the release of three dissident prisoners. According to Section 9 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995, the Court ruled that it did not have the right to increase the prison sentences of three people who had been sent from England to Ireland to finish their sentences. This case is important as it showed a flaw in the way the Irish prison system carried out prison sentences handed down by courts in other countries. This led to the early release of a number of prisoners.

<i>Roche (also known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Roche v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2014] IESC 53 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. The Court decided that the Bail Act of 1997 is not a code that explains all the rules about the law on bail. The Act does not replace the High Court's full and original authority. It shouldn't be taken as meaning that the crime replaces the court's authority. The Act adds new legal reasons why bail shouldn't be granted and changes the existing bail laws. For example, the Act of 1997 added a new reason to deny bail. Before that law, bail could be denied if it was thought that the defendant could escape instead of going to trial.

<i>T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 29; [2014] 4 IR 277 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision, where the court considered if Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 was similar to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument.

<i>OFarrell v Governor of Portlaoise Prison</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison, [2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 IR 619 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court dismissed an appeal made by the State against a High Court decision which ordered the release of prisoners who had been transferred from the United Kingodom to the Republic of Ireland to carry out the rest of their sentences. The Supreme Court, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995, decided that there was no legal basis to detain the respondents as there was a failure to comply with legislative requirements concerning the adaptation of foreign prison sentences. The Court also ruled that section 9 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995 did not give it the authority increase the respective prison sentences of three prisoners.

<i>Roche (Also Known as Dumbrell) v Governor of Cloverhill Prison</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Roche v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, [2014] IESC 53, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Bail Act 1997 is not a code providing an exhaustive statement regarding the law on bail. The Act did not "replace the full and original jurisdiction of the High Court" concerning bail, nor should it be deemed to replace the jurisdiction of the Court handling the particular criminal offence.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 "Dundon -v- The Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2005] IESC 83 (19 December 2005)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  2. ↑ Joyce, Ciaran (5 February 2014). "Prisoner should have been afforded benefit of formal protections under prison rules". Decisis Law Reports. Retrieved 10 April 2020.
  3. ↑ Fahey, Elaine (16 March 2011). "How to Be a Third Pillar Guardian of Fundamental Rights? The Irish Supreme Court and the European Arrest Warrant". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1788282. SSRN   1788282.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Williams, Paul (6 November 2014). Murder Inc.: The Rise and Fall of Ireland's Most Dangerous Criminal Gang. Penguin UK. ISBN   978-1-84488-348-6.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.