• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Foreign Govt,s decide who is arrested on suspicion for crimes in Ireland


The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
[I know there is an allied thread re the Bailey case but I feel the issues raised are wider and would ask the mods not to merge the threads.]


The recent High court endorsement of a European Arrest Warrant [EAW] sets a legal precedent for the arrest of any Irish citizen suspected of involvement in a crime in Ireland that a foreign government deems to be a crime in their country.

Any Irish citizen suspected of robbing a Frenchman in Dublin can now theoretically be arrested should the French government decree that robbing French citizens anywhere in the world is a crime.

This incorrect and highly undesireable legal precedent has been established.

It is a great pity that the parties involved in this frightening new legal development did not appeal the lawfulness of the suspects arrest to the Supreme Court.

Should Turkey become EU members and should Sharia Law become enshrined in that Islamic state nobody anywhere in Ireland will be safe
from the depradations of extremism now bolstered up by this incredibly
careless legal decision.


......


<Mod> This thread has been merged with "European Arrest Warrant undermine jurisdiction over domestic crime and the cr". </Mod>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,265
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
As long as the Bailey issues are kept on that thread, I do agree that this is worthy of it's own thread.

Can I ask, if a Garda investigation has thus deemed no arrest is necessary, do they then have to follow a European Arrest Warrant if they've already investigated yet reached a seperate conclusion?
 

seenitallb4

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
197
If the age of consent is 17 in country A and 16 in country B and an individual from country A sleeps with a 16 year old person in country B, could country A request the arrest of that individual?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
As long as the Bailey issues are kept on that thread, I do agree that this is worthy of it's own thread.

Can I ask, if a Garda investigation has thus deemed no arrest is necessary, do they then have to follow a European Arrest Warrant if they've already investigated yet reached a seperate conclusion?
Thank you Dave.

The Gardai must follow all valid court arrest warrants be they national or EAW. They have no choice in the matter.

The courts do have a choice.
The courts issue bench warrants for arrest frequently for persons suspected of crime in Ireland.

The European Arrest Warrant [EAW] is new and its use to arrest persons suspected of crimes in Ireland is unique and frightening.

IMO the high court should have declined to endorse and sent this EAW for testing wrt to the lawfullness of the proposed arrest.

In not so doing a new and ugly legal precedent has now been established in Irish law.

There are many common offences shared between EU states.

Now any EU state that passes any extraterritorial law, can have Irish citizens ARRESTED on suspicion of breaching such a law in Ireland.

This has to be a gross violation of Irish civil liberties.
 

Killianm

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
8
They wouldn't have to request the arrest as the minimum age of consent is always the minimum. ie. If an Irish person sleeps with anyone of any age under the Irish age of consent in ANY country they are breaking the law. Besides the fact that Turkey is a secular state, The Field Marshall is right it is clearly a supersession of European law over Irish law as due process has already taken place in Ireland and this is frightening.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
If the age of consent is 17 in country A and 16 in country B and an individual from country A sleeps with a 16 year old person in country B, could country A request the arrest of that individual?
Probably.
You are talking about extradition here I think.

Prior to any extradition there must be an arrest.

It is the lawfulness of being ARRESTED, at the behest of a foreign government, on suspicion of committing a crime in your own country that is under discussion.

Legal precedent has been established recently under an Irish high court for this to happen.

Should a foreign EU government decide that it is a crime to insult their citizens anywhere in the world now theoritically if an Irishman is even suspected of contravening such a law he can be arrested and threatened with extradition.
 
Last edited:

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,094
We voted for this in a referendum.

Now we see what we voted for and will have to get used to it.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
As long as the Bailey issues are kept on that thread, I do agree that this is worthy of it's own thread.

Can I ask, if a Garda investigation has thus deemed no arrest is necessary, do they then have to follow a European Arrest Warrant if they've already investigated yet reached a seperate conclusion?
Because the High Court endorsed the EAW issued by France as it complied with the relevant legislation, the European Arrest Warrant Act of 2003.

Now that Bailey has been brought before the High Court, he can challenge whether that EAW is lawful and also challenge the French extradition bid.

David, this has been explained ad nausem to FM but he either cannot or will not accept it.

In this case, the investigating gardai believe there is enough evidence to prosecute Bailey in Ireland for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in December 1996 and on at least two occasions have sent files to the DPP recommending a murder charge against Bailey.

On both occasions, the DPP has decided there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Under French law, a person can be investigated and prosecuted for the murder of a French citizen anywhere in the world. Sophie's family have succeeded in having a French judge open an investigation into the case in France. The Irish authorities agreed to cooperate with that investigation and passed on the Garda files to French judge, Patrick Gachon.

Gachon wants to investigate further whether Bailey has a case to answer under French law and sought his extradition from Ireland under an EAW.

Now that he has been brought before the High Court, Bailey can challenge whether he can be extradited to France to face investigation (not a charge) for the murder of a French citizen in Ireland and for which the Irish DPP has ruled there is not enough evidence to prosecute in an Irish court. The High Court will make a ruling on the matter. Either way, an appeal to the Supreme Court is guaranteed.

Again, this has been repeatedly explained to FM who refuses to accept the legal position as it stands.

FM believes Mr Justice Peart should simply have thrown out the warrant when the EAW Act does not give the HC any such discretion if the warrant complies with the act - which in this case it does.

Another point FM simply refuses to accept.

There really is no second thread needed on this matter. FM is just attention-seeking.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
We voted for this in a referendum.

Now we see what we voted for and will have to get used to it.
The European Arrest Warrant predates Lisbon Treaty by six years. It was agreed upon after 9/11. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisbon.
 

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,094
I didn't mention Lisbon.
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
It appears that we continue to follow our normal procedures with respect to extradition:

The Irish Supreme Court refused to extradite an Irish citizen to Hungary who was alleged to have killed two children through negligent driving. While the Irish Court never questioned the facts of the case or the fairness or outcome of the Hungarian trial, it decided that the person did not technically "flee" from Hungary, only "failed to return", having left the country with the consent of the Hungarian authorities: therefore the legal requirements for extradition under an EAW had not been established.
The decision not to extradite the Meath man has infuriated Budapest locals and elements of the Hungarian press which has campaigned for his return to face a jail sentence.

In April 2000, Mr Tobin's car mounted a footpath in a built-up area of Budapest.

After overtaking at a speed of up to 80km per hour, his car mounted a pavement and struck five-year old Martin Zoltai and his two-year old sister Petra who was sitting in a pram.

The two children were killed instantly.

Following the accident, Mr Tobin was charged with negligent driving causing the children's deaths, was granted bail by a Hungarian court and told to surrender his passport.

Mr Tobin later applied for his passport back as he wanted to return to Ireland with his family for a wedding.

Earlier this year the High Court heard that Tobin went back to Hungary but did not surrender his passport to the authorities on his return.

Seven months after the accident, Mr Tobin and his wife left Hungary and returned to Ireland permanently as his three-year contract with his employer had come to its natural end.

He was later convicted in his absence by a Hungarian court in 2002 of negligent driving causing the deaths of the two children.
All you need, it appears, is a wedding. Perhaps even a christening would do.

Hm. There's even a website by the children's parents - but perhaps it's better that Irish people avoid the consequences of their actions while abroad?
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
I didn't mention Lisbon.
Fair point, I jumped gun. To which referendum were you referring?

This is a unique situation that has arisen and it has yet to be tested in an Irish court, let alone the ECJ. Now it will be.

The High Court will now rule whether an Irish citizen can be extradited to France to face trial for a crime commited in Ireland.

If HC rejects the extradition sought here, and most legal commentators believe it will, particulary on the grounds that the crime was committed in Ireland and the French courts have no jurisdiction here under Irish law (or EU law for that matter) then that will be an end of it.

And then EAW can no longer be issued by another jurisdiction for a crime committed in Ireland.

But FM will not accept that (a) this case is unique, (b) it is uncharted waters legally and (c) the matter has to be tested and ruled upon by the High Court.

As far as FM is concerned, an EAW can now be issued for any Irish citizen for a crime in Ireland that is against the law in any other EU state.

That, of course, like the rest of FM's outlandish conspiracy claims, is patent b0ll0x.
 

He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,094
Fair point, I jumped gun. To which referendum were you referring?

[...]
Don't tell me you have forgotten? :eek: See if this jogs anything for you -

Decision and framework decision (Title VI of the EU Treaty)

The glossary is being updated given the recent signing of the Treaty of Lisbon.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, these new instruments under Title VI of the EU Treaty (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) have replaced joint action. More binding and more authoritative, they should serve to make action under the reorganised third pillar more effective.

Framework decisions are used to approximate (align) the laws and regulations of the Member States. Proposals are made on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State and they have to be adopted unanimously. They are binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved but leave the choice of form and methods to the national authorities.

Decisions are used for any purpose other than approximating the laws and regulations of the Member States. They are binding and any measures required to implement them at Union level are adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/framework_decisions_en.htm

Useful paper from the IHRC in 2002 on some issues now coming to the fore here

http://www.ihrc.ie/_fileupload/banners/obs2.doc

We continue to be concerned, however, that despite these safeguards the operation of the Arrest Warrant system could greatly diminish the role of the Irish courts in vindicating the rights of requested persons. As a general point, we believe that existing Irish constitutional protections in relation to extradition would seem to be at least as robust as those under the ECHR. In a number of areas, the Bill is likely to have the effect of diminishing those constitutional protections.
 
Last edited:

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,301
[I know there is an allied thread re the Bailey case but I feel the issues raised are wider and would ask the mods not to merge the threads.]


The recent High court endorsement of a European Arrest Warrant [EAW] sets a legal precedent for the arrest of any Irish citizen suspected of involvement in a crime in Ireland that a foreign government deems to be a crime in their country.

Any Irish citizen suspected of robbing a Frenchman in Dublin can now theoretically be arrested should the French government decree that robbing French citizens anywhere in the world is a crime.

This incorrect and highly undesireable legal precedent has been established.

It is a great pity that the parties involved in this frightening new legal development did not appeal the lawfulness of the suspects arrest to the Supreme Court.

Should Turkey become EU members and should Sharia Law become enshrined in that Islamic state nobody anywhere in Ireland will be safe
from the depradations of extremism now bolstered up by this incredibly
careless legal decision.


......
I think you have a very valid point there

- this should be decided by the Supreme Court & if necessary but before the People through a Constitutional Amendment

- which I'm pretty sure would be rejected.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
I think you have a very valid point there

- this should be decided by the Supreme Court & if necessary but before the People through a Constitutional Amendment

- which I'm pretty sure would be rejected.
Catalpa,

it will be - when Bailey challenges his arrest and the extradition request now that the warrant has been executed and he has been brought before the High Court.

FM, either doesn't understand or refused to accept that point.

A legal matter cannot be tested until there is a case to test it with. We now have that case.

FM is also extrapolating a single French law to cover every offence in every EU state and claiming they will all now apply to a crime committed in Ireland.

That is simply not the case.

When the High Court and/or Supreme Court reject the French request then the law will stand that the EAW does not apply to a person sought in another jurisdiction for a crime committed in Ireland. And then any such warrant will not be endorsed in the future.

That's how the law operates, not on the whim of a judge or an idiot keyboard jockey like FM - whose understanding of the law makes Lionel Hutz look like the Chief Justice.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
Grumpy jack is resorting to the usual abuse as he fails to realise the difference between unlawful arrest and extradition.

The high court has decided it is now lawful to arrest any Irish person on foot of an EAW when a foreign government suspects them of having committed a crime in Ireland..

The high court should have sent this EAW to the Supreme Court to be tested before any arrests were made.
The high court had legal discretion to do so.

Its failure in this regard exposes all Irish citizens to arrest for any act in Ireland deemed suspicious by a foreign government

Grumpy Jack does not understand this legal precedent and hence resorts to incessant abuse and obfuscation.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,550
Those of us who argued against the EAW warned that it would lead to the undermining of the rights of defendants as it would create a de facto EU criminal code by the back door. If bailey is extradited he will be tried for an offence committed in ireland without the protections of common law and double jeopardy.
Lisbon is pertinent as the institutions of the new post-lisbon EU are competent in respect of justice and home affairs. Thus any failure to extradite bailey could be challenged by France in the ECJ if they feel EU law has not been applied correctly. If the ECJ says he should be extradited the fun will start. While the ECJ cannot send in europol to bring him to france we would face the prospect of having to defy the ECJ.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
Grumpy jack is resorting to the usual abuse as he fails to realise the difference between unlawful arrest and extradition.

The high court has decided it is now lawful to arrest any Irish person on foot of an EAW when a foreign government suspects them of having committed a crime in Ireland..

The high court should have sent this EAW to the Supreme Court to be tested before any arrests were made.
The high court had legal discretion to do so.

Its failure in this regard exposes all Irish citizens to arrest for any act in Ireland deemed suspicious by a foreign government

Grumpy Jack does not understand this legal precedent and hence resorts to incessant abuse and obfuscation.
That is not the case FM. Bailey was arrested under an EAW that complied with the act. Full stop. The High Court had no jurisdiction to reject the warrant if it met the terms of the act. It did so the court endorsed it.

The court will now rule whether Bailey can be extradited to France for an offence committed in Ireland.

When it rejects the warrant on the grounds that France has no jurisdiction under Irish criminal law to try a criminal offence committed in Ireland, then the matter is decided and no warrant for such a matter will be accepted in future. End of.

The case began once Bailey was arrested on foot of the warrant. Not before.
Now he can challenge it. and the ruling will decide the law for the future. That's the way things work in a common law jurisdiction like Ireland.
 

Grumpy Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
6,090
Those of us who argued against the EAW warned that it would lead to the undermining of the rights of defendants as it would create a de facto EU criminal code by the back door. If bailey is extradited he will be tried for an offence committed in ireland without the protections of common law and double jeopardy.
Lisbon is pertinent as the institutions of the new post-lisbon EU are competent in respect of justice and home affairs. Thus any failure to extradite bailey could be challenged by France in the ECJ if they feel EU law has not been applied correctly. If the ECJ says he should be extradited the fun will start. While the ECJ cannot send in europol to bring him to france we would face the prospect of having to defy the ECJ.
Rubbish. The EU has no jurisdiction over criminal law. And France has no jurisdiction under Irish criminal law to try criminal offences committed in Ireland.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
44,414
Because the High Court endorsed the EAW issued by France as it complied with the relevant legislation, the European Arrest Warrant Act of 2003.

Now that Bailey has been brought before the High Court, he can challenge whether that EAW is lawful and also challenge the French extradition bid.

David, this has been explained ad nausem to FM but he either cannot or will not accept it.

In this case, the investigating gardai believe there is enough evidence to prosecute Bailey in Ireland for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in December 1996 and on at least two occasions have sent files to the DPP recommending a murder charge against Bailey.

On both occasions, the DPP has decided there is not enough evidence to prosecute.

Under French law, a person can be investigated and prosecuted for the murder of a French citizen anywhere in the world. Sophie's family have succeeded in having a French judge open an investigation into the case in France. The Irish authorities agreed to cooperate with that investigation and passed on the Garda files to French judge, Patrick Gachon.

Gachon wants to investigate further whether Bailey has a case to answer under French law and sought his extradition from Ireland under an EAW.

Now that he has been brought before the High Court, Bailey can challenge whether he can be extradited to France to face investigation (not a charge) for the murder of a French citizen in Ireland and for which the Irish DPP has ruled there is not enough evidence to prosecute in an Irish court. The High Court will make a ruling on the matter. Either way, an appeal to the Supreme Court is guaranteed.

Again, this has been repeatedly explained to FM who refuses to accept the legal position as it stands.

FM believes Mr Justice Peart should simply have thrown out the warrant when the EAW Act does not give the HC any such discretion if the warrant complies with the act - which in this case it does.

Another point FM simply refuses to accept.

There really is no second thread needed on this matter. FM is just attention-seeking.



I have never, contrary to Grumpy Jacks assertion refused to accept what might happen post Baileys arrest.


Indeed GJ blindly prattles on endlessly about what is legally self evident in that matter.

What Grumpy Jack cannot or will not accept is that the high court in consenting to endorse the EAW instead of refusing and sending the matter to the Supreme Court for testing has established a nasty precedent for arrest of all Irish citizens at the behest of foreign governments.

The lawfulness of arrests ,on foot of EAWs, of persons suspected of committing crimes in Ireland is the kernal of this thread.

[This concept is over GJ,s head, hence his foul abuse and ranting].
 
Top