Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive; Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive; Nos. 14 to 22, inclusive; No. 26; No. 36 and No. 47 are related and will be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This group covers a number of amendments dealing with administrative, technical and typographical matters.

Amendment No. 2 is a grammatical correction amending the word "who" to "whom".

Amendment No. 5 deletes the words "in that state" in section 10(d) of the 2003 Act. This amendment arises from a decision of the High Court in the case of the Minister for Justice and Equality v. Gustas in 2021, which was the subject of an Article 26 reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that case, surrender was sought on foot of a European arrest warrant issued by Lithuania where Norway had originally imposed a criminal conviction and sentence.

The High Court ultimately held that the wording of section 10(d) did not cover a situation where the sentence was imposed in another state and transferred, so the court was obliged to refuse surrender. This was despite the fact the conviction was recognised by Lithuania on foot of a bilateral agreement with Norway. Such a limitation is not necessary from a policy perspective and the proposed amendment will remedy this.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential textual amendments arising from the deletion of the words "in that state" in section 10(d) of the 2003 Act.

In relation to amendments Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16, 18 and 19, section 21A of the 2003 Act is being repealed and so references to it, including references to the provision by which it was originally inserted, are being removed accordingly.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 21 clarify the application of sections 15(5)(a) and 16(5)(a) of the 2003 Act which each deal with situations where surrender does not take place due to force majeure. Specifically, these amendments clarify that an order further detaining the person is made on the agreement of a new surrender date.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 26 correct cross-references. Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 are administrative textual amendments reflecting the fact that Part 3 of the 2003 Act contains both mandatory grounds prohibiting surrender and discretionary grounds by which surrender may be refused by the High Court.

Amendment No. 22 corrects a typographical error.

Amendment No. 36 is a minor technical amendment to the transit provisions of the 2003 Act to clarify that they apply to a person when the extradition proceedings are ongoing.

Amendment No. 47 is a technical drafting amendment.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment relates to section 6 and provides that where a person is arrested on foot of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom, they are to be advised of their right to legal advice in the United Kingdom for the purpose of assisting their legal representatives here.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 7 transposes Articles 18 and 19 of the European arrest warrant framework decision, and the comparable provisions of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It provides a mechanism whereby a person who is to be heard by a judicial authority in the issuing state may either be temporarily transferred to that state or heard in Ireland by a court assisted by a person nominated by that state.

The amendment also clarifies the availability of video link under similar circumstances. Given the development of the technology since the framework decision was introduced, it might be expected that this is more likely to arise in practice than the Article 18 or 19 procedure.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendment No. 11 is grouped with Seanad amendments Nos. 12, 13, 23 to 25, inclusive, all of which are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 23 and 24 deal with situations where surrender does not take place due to force majeure. These amendments provide for amendment to section 9, which amends section 15(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, and for amendment to section 10, which amends section 16(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. The amendments address a technical issue and clarify that it is the court rather than the central authority that must be satisfied that the force majeure circumstances continue to exist. Where a member state is unable to surrender a person within the time limits required and that failure is due to circumstances beyond the control of that member state or the issuing state, the 2003 Act provides that a new date for surrender is agreed and the requested person is detained in custody pending that surrender. Where the failure to effect surrender on time is for reasons other than these force majeure circumstances, however, Article 23(5) of the framework decision requires that the requested person, if in custody, must be released. Ireland's obligation to surrender the requested person remains extant and the CJEU has held that where the requested person must be released under Article 23(5) the executing member state is obliged, "to take any measures it deems necessary to prevent that person from absconding, with the exception of measures involving deprivation of liberty". These amendments provide that the requested person would be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as the court deems necessary to ensure they are available for surrender.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 25 clarify the obligations, where the consideration of an appeal or an Article 40 application prevents the determination of surrender proceedings within the relevant time limit, that the court causes the issuing judicial authority and Eurojust to be informed, and clarifies the requirement to provide reasons when so doing.

I will take the opportunity to move my own amendment to Seanad amendment No. 13. This is the only additional amendment to the Seanad amendments that I am bringing today. It is a minor technical amendment. As I just stated, amendments Nos. 13 and 25 serve the same purpose and, as such, should be identical. Unfortunately, the words "on conclusion of those proceedings, and" which appear in amendment No. 25 were inadvertently omitted from amendment No. 13. I ask colleagues in the House to accept this minor technical amendment so that the Bill can be enacted and commenced as soon as possible.

Seanad amendment No. 13:

Seanad amendment No. 13:

Section 9: In page 10, line 15, to delete “without delay and,” and substitute “and Eurojust without delay, provide reasons as to why the proceedings have not yet been finalised and,”.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 13:

To insert after “finalised and,”, “on conclusion of those proceedings and”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos 27 to 32, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos 27 to 32, inclusive, amend section 11 of the Bill, which inserts a new section 16A into the 2003 Act. The new section 16A provides that where the prescribed time limits are not met, that failure does not constitute a ground to refuse surrender, does not prejudice the requirement for the court to make a decision as to whether to endorse an arrest warrant for execution and does not preclude the continued detention of the person under the 2003 Act. Following legal advice, the provisions that provide the faiure does not prejudice the requirement for the court to make a decision as to whether to endorse an arrest warrant for execution, are not now required.

Amendments Nos. 28 and 31 delete these particular provisions.

Amendments Nos 27, 29, 30 and 32 are administrative textual amendments arising from that deletion.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 33 and 38 are related and will be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 33 addresses a limitation of the provisions in respect of outward temporary surrender in section 19 of the 2003 Act. This arises where a person has been sentenced in the State for a separate offence, but their surrender is sought by the issuing state. The court has a discretion to allow their temporary surrender for the purpose of being tried in the other state, and determines the applicable conditions. This is being extended to allow for service of a sentence in the other state. This is in line with the provisions of the framework decision.

Amendment No. 38 provides that conditional surrender operates when the State makes such a request of another member state, similar to where a request is made of the State under section 19 of the 2003 Act.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seanad amendments Nos 34, 35 and 39 to 46, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 34 relates to section 15 of the Bill. Where a person has been surrendered to an issuing state, and the issuing state wishes to prosecute the person for other offences, the consent of the High Court is required. If the conditions of the EAW framework decision are met and no grounds for non-execution apply, the High Court is obliged to give its consent. Section 15(a) of the Bill substitutes section 22(7) of the 2023 Act to provide for this obligation.

Amendment No. 35 would substitute section 16 of the Bill, which amends section 23 of the 2003 Act. Where a person has been surrendered from Ireland to an issuing state and that state wishes to surrender the person to another state, the consent of the High Court is required. If the conditions of the EAW framework decision are met and no grounds for non-execution apply, the High Court is required to provide its consent within 30 days of the request. This amendment clarifies this requirement.

Amendment No. 39 inserts a new section into the Bill, which will amend section 38 of the 2003 Act in respect of a refusal of surrender under that section. It will provide the High Court with a discretion to refuse surrender where previously it would have been obliged to refuse surrender.

Amendments Nos 40 to 42, inclusive, provide for administrative textual amendments to section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2023 Act.

Amendment No. 43 amends section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2023 Act. Section 41 of the 2003 Act deals with the legal principle of double jeopardy. This amendment inserts a new paragraph (c) in section 41(2) that provides that a person will not be surrendered to an issuing state if that person has been sentenced by a third country in respect of an act or omission for which surrender is sought, and is currently serving that sentence.

Amendment No. 44 provides for a further administrative textual amendment to section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2003 Act; clarifying the language around "detention" being a "period of detention".

Amendment No. 45 amends section 23 of the Bill, which amends section 42 of the 2003 Act. It provides the High Court with a discretion to refuse to order the surrender where such a discretion is required under the framework decision.

Amendment No. 46 amends section 44 of the 2003 Act to provide for an optional rather than a mandatory ground for refusing surrender in respect of certain offences committed outside the issuing state.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment transposes a provision of Schengen information system regulation in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, which requires that prior authorisation to make an alert temporarily unavailable be granted by "the competent judicial authority". The amendment sets out a procedure to do this.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, and and amendments No. 14 to 47, inclusive, made by Seanad Éireann to the European Arrest Warrant (Amendment) Bill 2022 and that Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendment No. 13 made by Seanad Éireann with an amendment thereto, to which the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired.