Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

It comes down to workability. Having taken this unilateral stance when the framework decision was adopted, we wanted it to be clear that we were not agreeing to a proposition that mere suspects could be arrested in Ireland whatever other countries wanted to do and that warrants would only be used to remove people to foreign states on the basis that a decision had been made to arrest, charge and try them for the offence. We regard that as fundamental.

The Deputy asked if this arises from our adversarial system — that is one way of putting it. In another European country it might be possible to arrest someone on suspicion of murder and deprive him of his liberty while he went through a criminal justice process which could take a couple of years. It is fine telling a Frenchman in Ireland that is the system in France and to go back and face it. It would be different, however, if an Irish person was walking down the Champs Élysées and someone concluded he might have done something and wanted to know more about it. We were forced into the position where we had to act unilaterally.

We do not, however, want to make our unilateral provision unworkable, where half of France would have to come to Ireland to submit affidavits to make the system work. In such a case, if the person says he was walking down the Champs Élysées and has no idea what this is about, the French cannot possibly have decided to charge him. If he is one of numerous people who could have committed the offence, then the presumption that they are seeking him for trial can be rebutted.

If it was necessary to lay the case out before an Irish court every time and for argument to take place as to whether that was sufficient basis to put someone on trial in Ireland, however, we would render the system unworkable. This amendment states that a substantial issue must be raised on that point before that unilateral protection can be invoked.

See this speech in context