Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IESC 63 ECLI:IE:SC:2016:63 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on surrender grounds overtaken by recent precedent Balmer v Minister for Justice. Appeal fails due to lack of new argument. Court refuses adjournment for new EU exit argument.

Case Number IESC 63
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, recognizing that the original grounds were overtaken by the recent decision in Balmer v Minister for Justice. The appellant sought an adjournment to raise a new argument regarding the prospective exit of the UK from the EU and its impact on the European Arrest Warrant Scheme. The Court refused this request, noting that the Minister's position allows arguments based on new circumstances arising after a s. 16 order is made, rendering the existing order not a bar to such arguments.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003; s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003: A respondent may argue that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender, and the fact that there is a pre-existing s. 16 order will not be a bar.

Keywords

AI generated
European Arrest Warrant Act surrender proceedings s. 16 order s. 18 order UK EU exit adjournment application overtaken grounds

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003
that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender, and the
s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003
the European Arrest Warrant Scheme, given that his surrender had been postponed pursuant to s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Balmer v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25
Supreme Court dismisses appeal allowing surrender of life sentence prisoner who served punitive tariff period.
[2016] IESC 25
Supreme Court dismisses appeal allowing surrender of life sentence prisoner who served punitive tariff period.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

THE SUPREME COURT

Appeal No. 75/2009 SC

Denham C. J.

O’Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Clarke J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

O’Malley J.

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

AND

PERRY WHARRIE

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

Ruling of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 27th October, 2016, by Denham C.J.

1. Counsel for the respondent/appellant recognised that the grounds of appeal in this case have been overtaken by the recent

decision of this Court in Balmer v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25 and that the appeal as formulated must fail.

2. Counsel for the respondent/appellant applied to the Court for an adjournment to bring an application to seek to amend the notice

of appeal so as to raise a new argument related to the prospective exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and therefore

the European Arrest Warrant Scheme, given that his surrender had been postponed pursuant to s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant

Act, 2003, while he serves a sentence in this jurisdiction which will not be spent until 2020 approximately.

3. During the course of discussions, counsel for the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform stated that a respondent may argue

that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender, and the

fact that there is a pre-existing s. 16 order will not be a bar. On that basis the Court refuses the application for an adjournment.

4. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the appeal.