Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The facts on the arrest of the applicant are not in issue and were set out fully by the High Court, as follows:
The facts as to the receipt of the warrants and the system operated by the Commissioner was deposed to by Sergeant Michael Heffernan, as follows:
The European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 is an Act to bring into effect a European Union Council framework decision of 13 th June, 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between member states, to amend the Extradition Act, 1965 and to provide for connected matters. The Act of 2003 states in s. 1 (2) that the Act comes into operation on 1 st January, 2004. The application of the Act is set out in s. 4 (1) which provides:
Subsections (2) and (3) are not relevant to this case. Thus, the 2003 Act provides that it will apply to an offence whether alleged to have been committed before or after the 1 st January, 2004, and the offences in this case were alleged to have been committed prior to 1 st January, 2004. However, in repealing the Act of 1965, the Act of 2003 made provision as follows:
It is this section which the respondents submit applies to this case. The warrants were not endorsed before 1 st January, 2004 and so s. 50 (2) (b) does not apply.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.