Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The revised section 21 provided for by the amendment allows the arrested person to raise a question about the intention of the issuing state and, in this case, to raise a question about the issuing state's intention to proceed with a prosecution. However, amendment No. 18 adds a presumption that there has been compliance by the issuing state with the terms of the framework decision unless the contrary is proved by the party making the claim of non-compliance. In other words, the complainant would have to do more than merely claim that the issuing state has failed to comply with a framework decision. He or she would have to overcome the presumption before the court could examine the claim of non-compliance. One cannot simply make a claim and have an inquiry made into it in the court. One must put before the court some evidence which would persuade it that there is an issue to be inquired into. If one does not bring substantial grounds, the presumption will operate in favour of the requesting state.