The High Court has ordered that a 53-year-old Irish businessman may be extradited to the United States, where he is wanted for sexually assaulting a young boy during the 1990s.
The man, who runs a business in the southeast and cannot be named for legal reasons, had contested his extradition to the state of New York. He claimed that he was coerced, as part of a plea-bargaining process, into pleading guilty in New York to one count of sexual assault of a nine-year- old boy during the mid-1990s. He has denied that charge.
The alleged victim is the son of a woman with whom the man had been living in the US.
In his judgment yesterday dismissing the man's challenge to his extradition, Mr Justice Michael Peart said that, after considering all the arguments, he was satisfied an order of extradition should be made. He also made an order committing the man to prison to await the order of the Minister for Justice for his extradition. The man has 15 days to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order.
The man had contested his extradition on a number of grounds, including delay in seeking it. Dr Michael Forde SC, for the man, had said his client left the US in 1998 but was only arrested in Ireland on foot of a warrant in 2006.
Dr Forde said his client also felt coerced into admitting to one charge of sexual assault as part of a plea-bargaining process. While plea bargaining is commonplace in the US, it is unconstitutional under Irish law, counsel had submitted.
It was further submitted that the man, who has a heart condition, was afraid he was likely to be subjected to "savage attacks" by other inmates. Such possible attacks might be induced by prison staff because of the nature of the charge against him, it was argued.
Opposing the man's challenge, Anthony Collins SC, for the State, argued no evidence of coercion was produced by the man and there was no constitutional impediment to an extradition order being made.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Peart rejected the claim that the man was coerced into admitting a charge. There was no question but that the man voluntarily, and with the benefit of advice from his own lawyer, had entered upon a plea-bargaining procedure in order to achieve a lesser sentence than the one that would have been imposed if he was found guilty at his trial on several counts of sexual assault.
The judge also said he was satisfied that the prison authorities in New York would provide proper and adequate medical treatment and care for the man.
He rejected arguments that any delay on the part of the US authorities was prejudicial. The man had left the US before his sentence hearing, the judge noted.
In an affidavit, the man said he was living in New York in the 1990s with a woman, who had worked as his secretary, and her three children. The children's father had objected to the man's suggestion that he, his partner and the children leave New York to establish a new business.
The man said he was told by the children's father he would not let his children leave New York and "would get me". He said a complaint was made against him in October 1996 alleging he had sexually abused the children.
He said no complaint was made against him by the children's mother, who suggested to him that her former husband had got the children to make up the claims. There was no medical evidence of abuse, he said.