"Murder is murder, the importation of the drug cannabis is the importation of the drug cannabis and having a Sten machinegun with intent to endanger life is having a Sten machinegun with the intent to endanger life," a prosecution lawyer told the High Court in London yesterday during an appeal against the extradition of Mr John Gilligan.
He is facing extradition to Ireland for the murder of the journalist, Veronica Guerin, and charges relating to the possession of drugs with intent to supply and the possession of firearms with intent to endanger life.
On the final day of submissions, Mr Nigel Peters QC, appearing for the Irish Government, rebutted claims that the wording of offences in 18 warrants issued against Mr Gilligan was not sufficient for his extradition.
Mr Gilligan, who has been in custody since his arrest at Heathrow Airport last October, should be returned to Ireland because all that is required is for a magistrate to be satisfied the offence on the warrant corresponds to an offence in England and Wales, Mr Peters said.
Arguing that the appeal to quash the extradition order should not succeed, Mr Peters said a magistrate was not required to hear details of conduct relating to the alleged offences, only the definition of the offence and if "the offence comes to what we know here" in England and Wales.
The Extradition Act 1989, Mr Peters submitted, clearly pointed to a "statutory interpretation" of the offence outlined in the warrant, and if the British parliament had wanted a magistrate to inquire about the conduct of the offence it would have said so, but it did not.
Moving on to the question of an abuse of process during the extradition proceedings, Mr Peters said: "It is beyond doubt that the defendant was at Heathrow Airport over a year ago in possession of £330,000. The argument that the Irish authorities manipulated the process in seeking his extradition is not a matter for this court to hear. An abuse of process should be argued in Ireland."
The defence has claimed that the investigation into Ms Guerin's murder was facilitated by Mr Gilligan's continued custody in Britain on drug-trafficking charges. In September, when the drug-trafficking charges were put to one side after the extradition warrants were issued the defence argued that the prosecution never intended proceeding with the trial.
Ms Clare Montgomery QC, for Mr Gilligan, argued that the prosecution had not acted with "due expedition" and therefore did not have "good and sufficient" reason to abandon the trial. It had adjourned the trial because it chose to do so and not because warrants were issued for Mr Gilligan's extradition.
"Why could there not have been a trial on September 8th?" Ms Montgomery asked. In reply, Mr Peters said the "rare and exceptional" nature of the case led to the trial being put to one side and he insisted if the extradition proceedings failed the trial would proceed.
Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Astill will rule on the appeal on January 12th.