Extradition granted to face charge of perverting course of justice

MJELR -v- Hill

MJELR -v- Hill

High Court

Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Peart on April 3rd, 2009.

Judgment

READ MORE

The judicial authorities in the UK sought the extradition of the respondent under a European Arrest Warrant to face charges of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a trial of people charged in connection with the 7/7 London bombings.

Mr Justice Peart found that the court was required to make the requested orders.

Background

The case concerned the sending of DVDs to the trial judge and foreman of the jury in a case involving the trial of people on charges arising out of the bombings in London in July 2005.

The charge of “doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of public justice” carries a possible life sentence, and was sufficiently serious to fall under the EAW. In order to justify extradition, it must correspond to an offence in this jurisdiction.

The respondent objected to his extradition on three grounds: that it contravened his constitutional and Convention rights of freedom of thought, expression and religion; that the offence was committed outside the issuing state; and that correspondence between the offence and an equivalent offence in Ireland was not established.

In an affidavit the arresting Garda officer said that, when arrested and asked whether he knew what the warrant was about, he said: “I sent them. I believe these men to be innocent.”

His counsel argued that the DVD contained an exhortation to the jury or trial judge to find the accused people innocent, but expressed an honest opinion held by the respondent.

Counsel for the Minister said that sending opinions to a trial judge and jury in order to influence the outcome of a trial could not possibly constitute a right protected under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Decision

Mr Justice Peart said that the right to freedom of expression was not an absolute right, and certain expressions were prohibited by law.

“It includes any statement or communication made to or with a jury foreman or a trial judge which is intended or designed or likely to influence the outcome of a trial,” he said.

There was no basis on which the surrender of the respondent could be prohibited on this ground.

He said he was dealing with the issue of where the offence was committed and the issue of correspondence together.

Two packages were sent to Kingstown Crown Court, via standard post, apparently originating in the Republic or Ireland, and apparently containing the respondent’s fingerprints.

Counsel for the Minister said that if the same activity was carried out here, it would amount to the same offence as that contained in the warrant, that is, perverting the course of justice contrary to common law.

Counsel for the respondent said that all he had done was send two packages. They were intercepted by court staff before they reached the intended recipients.

He said there could be no offence simply to post two packages, with no result achieved. He also said that to prove the offence it would be necessary to view the contents of the DVD.

Mr Justice Peart said that information was available about their contents, and it included the claim that the UK government and security services conspired to cause explosions in central London on July 7th, 2005, and that the 7/7 bombers were innocent individuals duped into participating in what they thought was a training exercise.

He said he had chosen not to watch the DVD, as that would run the risk of entering upon the merits of the prosecution case.

What was required was an approach to a jury or any member of it to express an opinion about a case.

If the DVD had contained a film of, say, Bambi, Watership Downor 101 Dalmatiansunder the belief that the recipients might appreciate some relaxing entertainment, it might not be regarded as having the capacity to influence the outcome of a trial.

However, this DVD was not regarded as being so benign.

“I am satisfied that both tendency and intention are satisfied in relation to the offence in this case.”

It was of no relevance that the packages did not reach their intended recipients. Once they were posted the offence was committed.

Turning to the issue of the offence being committed outside the UK, he referred to two cases, Reg -v- Doot [1973]and DPP -v- Stonehouse, in which part of the offence was committed outside the UK.

While the nature of the offences in these cases was different, they were similar in principle in that the intended result was to be achieved in the United Kingdom, even though the act which commenced it was done abroad, that is, in Ireland.

He said that the offence was one which, if committed in this jurisdiction, would be an offence here. If the respondent posted a package in the UK intending that it be received by a jury foreman and a trial judge in this State, an offence would have been committed in this State.

For all these reasons the court was required to make the order sought for the surrender of the respondent to the authorities in the UK.

He added that since he heard this case on March 19th last he had received seven packages, posted from Finland, the US and Qatar, none of which he had opened, but which clearly contained DVDs and documents.

The were addressed to him in Court 11, the High Court, which was open to the inference that the sender had some connection to the respondent.

Another judge with an earlier involvement in the case received similar packages.

He said he wanted to express his disapproval in the strongest possible terms, and it was a matter for the Garda Síochána and/or the DPP what further action should be taken.

The full judgment is on www.courts.ie

Remy Farrell Bl, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor, for the Minister; Kieran Kelly BL, instructed by John O’Leary, Tallaght, Dublin, for the respondent