Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford

Last updated
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of Arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided17 December 2009
Citation(s)[2009] IESC 83
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2009/S83.html
Case history
Prior action(s)Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford [2006] IEHC 63
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham J., Hardiman J., Finnegan J.
Case opinions
There is sufficient detail described on the warrant to show the alleged participation, the alleged involvement, of the appellant in order to satisfy the requirements of the Act of 2003.
Decision byDenham J.
Keywords

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford[2009] IESC 83 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered the validity of a European Arrest Warrant. [2] Pursuant to this warrant, the High Court directed the respondent, Mr Stafford, to surrender to authorities in the United Kingdom. Mr Stafford appealed this to the Supreme Court where he argued that the warrant was flawed and thus invalid. He also argued that there was not sufficient evidence to link him to the alleged offences.

Contents

The Court dismissed Mr Stafford's appeal, finding that the warrant did not contain a flaw which invalidated it. The Court also decided that a warrant which is based on circumstantial evidence can be enforced, according to the ruling of a court, even if the participation of the defendant is only suspected to have taken place in the crime. [1]

Background

Mr Martin Stafford was a resident of the United Kingdom. On April 12, 2005, he was taken before the Irish High Court following the issuance of a global arrest warrant for Mr Stafford by London's Bow Street Magistrates Court. Mr Stafford was charged with six offences, unlawful wounding, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, sexual touching, and murder. [1]

The charges were for two different offences. The charge of unlawful wounding was about Mr Stafford's actions on July 25, 2004, when he talked to Mr David Lee Goodall. After threatening Mr Goodall, Mr Stafford was said to have injured him with a knife. The remaining charges centred on Ms. Michelle Gunshon's disappearance on December 4, 2004. In Ireland, Mr Stafford had previously been detained on suspicion of sexual assault and false imprisonment  Before the High Court, he contested the arrest warrant.

Mr Stafford's lawyer, Michael O'Higgins SC, presented arguments to the court which contended that there was not sufficient evidence to implicate Mr Stafford to these crimes and therefore the warrant was defective. It was argued that the warrant did not contain adequate information regarding the crimes that have been committed and that the Court should issue judicial authority to provide additional documentation. Further, Mr Stafford should be required to prove the relevant similarities regarding the offenses appearing in the warrant; as Mr Stafford is currently charged with offenses in the Irish jurisdiction, his surrender would breach the Constitution and in particular Article 38.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann which provides citizens the right to a fair trial. [3]

All of these arguments were, however, rejected by the High Court, which also affirmed the warrant's legality. Mr Stafford appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Holdings of the Supreme Court

Mr Stafford challenged the High Court's ruling on three different grounds. Initially, it was argued that a provision of the arrest warrant did not apply, rendering the warrant as a whole unlawful. Second, it was argued that there was insufficient proof of the violations in the warrant. Lastly, it was argued that there was no evidence connecting Mr Stafford to the crime.

Mr Stafford did not challenge the first charge on the warrant, which was unlawful wounding, but he did challenge charges two through six (kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, sexual touching, and murder). Mr O'Higgins, Mr Stafford's lawyer, argued that the Judge erred in law in failing to interpret the statute [4] in a way favourable to the Appellant. He said that Mr Stafford was not connected to the crimes and that the warrant was not valid. In court cases, evidence, especially direct evidence, is quite important. There is direct evidence that the facts of the case are true. Witnesses would be the prime examples. [5]

These claims were denied by the Minister's lawyer. If the majority of the evidence in the warrant was circumstantial, that in and of itself is not a grounds to dismiss a request for surrender. [1] Evidence that the court can infer conclusions from, such as fingerprints found at the scene of a crime, is known as circumstantial evidence. [6] Furthermore, it was argued that Mr Stafford's detention was warranted in light of the mysterious circumstances surrounding Ms. Gunshon's disappearance. Mr Stafford was connected to these troubling events. It was further contended that while the EU rules mandated that an accurate description of the offences be included on a warrant, they omitted any information regarding the degree of the requisite evidence connection between the suspect and the offence.

The appeal was denied on the basis that there was sufficient proof connecting Mr Stafford to Ms. Gunshon's disappearance. Denham J. further determined that the warrant complied with the requirements of the 2003 European Arrest Warrant. [7] Denham J. ultimately agreed with the defence lawyer's argument, declaring, that he was convinced that the facts on the warrant in this case are adequate to establish the conditions in which alleged offences were committed. The court dismissed Mr Stafford's appeal and maintained the High Court's ruling.

Martin Stafford was found guilty by the Birmingham Magistrates Court on July 31, 2012 for the abduction, rape, murder, and prevention of burial of Michelle Gunshon. The trial began on July 31, 2012. The judge ordered him to serve a total of thirty-three years in prison. [8] [9] [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrest</span> Law enforcement action

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

The High Court of Ireland is a court which deals at first instance with the most serious and important civil and criminal cases. When sitting as a criminal court it is called the Central Criminal Court and sits with judge and jury. It also acts as a court of appeal for civil cases in the Circuit Court. It also has the power to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, and of judicial review over acts of the government and other public bodies.

Capital murder refers to a category of murder in some parts of the US for which the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty. In its original sense, capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. Some jurisdictions that provide for death as a possible punishment for murder, such as California, do not have a specific statute creating or defining a crime known as capital murder; instead, death is one of the possible sentences for certain kinds of murder. In these cases, "capital murder" is not a phrase used in the legal system but may still be used by others such as the media.

The District Court is the lowest court in the Irish court system and the main court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. It has responsibility for hearing minor criminal matters, small civil claims, liquor licensing, and certain family law applications. It is also responsible for indicting the accused and sending them forward for trial at the Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barbara Hewson</span> Irish barrister (1961–2021)

Barbara Mary Hewson was an Anglo-Irish barrister with a practice in public law in both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Hewson specialised in Court of Protection work, human rights, judicial review, and regulatory defence cases. She was interested in reproductive health and the rights of pregnant women, the mentally incapacitated and the mentally ill.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in the Republic of Ireland. It is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

<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>Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>Wansboro v DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Wansboro v DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

<i>A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison[2006] IESC 45; [2006] 4 IR 88; [2006] 2 ILRM 481, the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that a finding that criminal legislation is unconstitutional need not render existing convictions void.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

<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>OC(P) v DPP</i> (2000) Irish Supreme Court case

O'C(P) v DPP [2000] 3 IR 87[1]; (2000) IESC 58 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision where the court examined the issues of "delay" and the right to a fair trial. The Court stated that under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, provides that no one shall be tried for a crime "save in due course of law," and stated that anyone accused with an offence has a right to a trial that is performed with reasonable expedition. The complainant's delay in informing the authorities of the alleged sexual abuse was found to be justified by the Court given the circumstances of the alleged offence. The court found that the applicant's ability to defend himself had been substantially affected by the delay, creating a real possibility of an unfair trial. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

<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>McNulty v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McNulty v DPP[2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the appellant had been previously charged with possession of controlled drugs with an intent to supply contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977; the case was heard in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court before Judge Michael White, where the jury were unable to reach a verdict and accordingly disagreed. The appellant claimed that the respondent had unfairly taken advantage of the jury's disagreement after what he claims was an incorrect decision by White J in allowing the admittance of additional evidence to make up for the "defects in proof at the first trial."

<i>Damache v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional. This statutory provision allowed a member of An Garda Siochana, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a search warrant to another Garda who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid. In this case, such a person was a deemed to be a member of the Gardaí. Thus, section 29(1) was declared unconstitutional and any evidence taken from the search warrant was inadmissable.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford [2009] IESC 83 (17 December 2009). Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  2. ↑ Lambe, Deirdre; Curley, Vanessa (July 2014). "'Legal Update: Extradition Law - European arrest warrant'" (PDF). Journal of the Bar of Ireland. 19 (4): lxxix.
  3. ↑ Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. Stafford [2006] IEHC 63, 14 February 2006, retrieved 2023-03-30
  4. ↑ Lambe, Deirdre; Renate, Ní Uigín (February 2014). "'Legal Update: Extradition Law - European arrest warrant'" (PDF). Journal of the Bar of Ireland. 19 (1): xiii.
  5. ↑ "Direct Evidence". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-04-05.
  6. ↑ Citizensinformation.ie. "Circumstantial evidence". www.citizensinformation.ie. Retrieved 2020-04-05.
  7. ↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  8. ↑ "Martin Stafford Jailed over Michelle Gunshon Murder". BBC News. 31 July 2012.
  9. ↑ Prof J Paul McCutcheon and Dr Gerard Coffey, 'Report into Determination of Life Sentences', Irish Human Rights Commission (September 2006). Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  10. ↑ "Mandatory Sentences (Consultation Paper) (LRC CP 66-2011) [2011] IELRC CP66 (December 2011)". www.lawreform.ie. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
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.