Dáil debates

Thursday, 17 November 2005

Adjournment Debate.

Extradition Requests.

4:00 pm

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue I am raising today is unusual. The extradition of two wanted men in the Czech Republic is being sought from this country. They are apparently fugitives from justice. They are wanted for crimes such as murder, kidnapping and torture in the Czech Republic. They are allegedly part of the largest criminal gang in that country and the Czech Government has contacted the Irish Government to seek their return. So far, we have been unable to grant their extradition or the request under the European arrest warrant. The two fugitives are apparently moving around in our country without hindrance. The problem seems to arise from the fact that both countries implemented the European arrest warrant at different times and in different ways. We implemented it in 2003 and made it retrospective and prospective, while the Czech authorities implemented it in 2004 and did not make it retrospective.

It appears that there may be a difficulty in executing the arrest warrant because of the terms under which it was implemented, while the pre-European arrest warrant extradition legislation no longer applies. All member states of the European Union implemented the arrest warrant legislation in different fashions and at different times. We implemented it here before the Czech Republic became a member of the EU. The new EU member states from eastern Europe would take a different approach to the situation because extradition would not have been applied in the old Soviet bloc. The end result is that an anomaly exists.

Ireland has been the subject of requests for extradition or repatriation of these Czech nationals. We seem to have been unable to carry out those requests and I wonder what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform thinks about the situation. How does he intend to expedite the request? He should have a meeting with the Council of Ministers to see what other anomalies exist, because there is not much sense in introducing so-called standardised forms of legislation unless they function. We are wasting time in the Oireachtas going through the motions if the legislation cannot function between the different countries.

We have enough murder and mayhem on the streets of our country. If we have it on good authority from the Czech police that there are two dangerous fugitives from the law of the Czech Republic, the Minister needs to examine the legislation to figure out whether we can deport undesirable non-nationals from this country. How do we close the European arrest warrant loophole? How do we deal with specific requests that have come to us about individuals who are fugitives from justice and seem to be able to operate here without hindrance?

5:00 pm

Photo of John O'DonoghueJohn O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy raises two distinct issues, namely, the action which the Minister proposes to take on specific extradition requests by the Czech Republic and the action he will take to close what the Deputy describes as a loophole in the operation of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. With regard to the first issue, neither the Minister nor the Department comment on any matter which may eventually come before the courts. To do otherwise could give rise to a danger of prejudice in such a case. As for the second issue, it may be helpful if I outline the manner in which the Czech Republic implemented legislation to give effect to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. That legislation applies only to offences committed after 1 November 2004. Therefore, the issue relates to the procedures that apply to offences committed before the 1 November 2004.

The terms of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant are important in understanding how the present position has arisen. Article 31 of the framework decision states that it replaces the existing extradition conventions, including the 1957 Council of Europe European Convention on Extradition. This means that the framework decision is now the basis for surrender between EU member states which have implemented it. Article 32 of the framework decision establishes the general principle that surrender requests received after 1 January 2004 would be governed by the rules adopted by member states on the European arrest warrant. It also allowed member states the opportunity of declaring at the time of the adoption of the framework decision by the Council, on 7 August 2002, that they would only apply the framework decision to offences committed after a date they had specified.

A total of three member states availed of this provision at the time of its adoption. The Czech Republic made a declaration at the time of its implementation of the framework decision, the effect of which purported to apply the European arrest warrant only to offences committed after 1 November 2004. That is not in compliance with the framework decision.

Section 3 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to designate a member state that has, under its national law, given effect to the framework decision. Thus, the Czech Republic was designated on 25 January 2005 since it had at that stage adopted its legislation implementing the European arrest warrant. The effect of the designation of the Czech Republic was to cease the application of previous extradition arrangements to the Czech Republic from that date. A recent High Court decision highlights the difficulty which has arisen surrounding extradition to the Czech Republic. It is clear from that decision that any remedial action required is not for the Minister nor, indeed, for this State.

The High Court decision in July, concerning a request from the Czech Republic for the extradition of a Czech national, decided that it was necessary for the Czech authorities to issue a European arrest warrant where an application for the arrest of a person, whose extradition is being sought, is made after the date that the Czech Republic became a designated state for the purpose of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The relevant date here is 25 January 2005.

Therefore, following this High Court decision Ireland is unable to act on a request for extradition received from a member state of the European Union which has been designated for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The only exceptions arise in the case of three member states which had made appropriate declarations at the time the framework decision was adopted. In light of the decision, the Attorney General has advised the Minister that extradition arrangements between Ireland and the Czech Republic are now governed by the procedures contained in the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and Ireland can only proceed to consider surrender requests on the basis of a European arrest warrant.

I do not suggest that we can sit back and do nothing, particularly where the difficulty which has arisen could give rise to an inability on the part of either State to act against suspected offenders. To that end, the Minister, in response to a question from his Czech counterpart made prior to the High Court decision, had pointed out to him the effect of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the subsequent designation of the Czech Republic. He informed his counterpart that requests had to be made in conformity with the European Arrest Warrant Act.

Following the High Court decision, the central authority for the European arrest warrant also wrote, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, to the Czech authorities setting out the implications of the decision. The Deputy will appreciate therefore, that the manner in which the Czech Republic has implemented the European arrest warrant means that if the offence occurred before a certain date, they will seek extradition under the Council of Europe convention, that is, effectively they will seek extradition under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 1965 and not by a European arrest warrant.

The Office of the Attorney General has advised that it appears that the European Arrest Warrant Act does not permit the processing of a request for extradition received from a state which has been designated for the purposes of the Act except in the case of the member states which availed of the provisions of Article 32 at the time of the adoption of the framework decision. Therefore, the European Arrest Warrant Act does not permit the execution here of a request for extradition under the 1965 Act from the Czech Republic following the designation of the Czech Republic for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. This was the clear decision of the High Court in the case to which I referred previously. The only way to proceed in such cases is for the Czech Republic to issue a European arrest warrant. If that presents a difficulty for the Czech authorities, it is a matter for them to resolve in their domestic legislative provisions.

Therefore, it should be clear, that there is no loophole, as the Deputy suggests, in the European Arrest Warrant Act and accordingly it is not for the Minister or this State to take any action in this regard. I emphasise to the Deputy and the House that to do otherwise would be to breach our own obligations under the framework decision. No one would suggest that this would be the proper way to proceed. The central authority is in continuing contact with the appropriate Czech authorities about the matter.