[ad_1]
A request by French authorities to view legal filings on Ian Bailey’s extradition proposal is “unprecedented” and “unorthodox,” his lawyers told the High Court.
Bailey faces a 25-year prison sentence for the murder of filmmaker Sophie Toscan du Plantier and a three-day hearing in which she will answer the request for her surrender was scheduled for Tuesday, July 15 in Superior Court.
Bailey denies any involvement in the death of one’s mother.
Ronan Munro SC, for Mr. Bailey, said that a request had been received from the French authorities to see both the State’s and Mr. Bailey’s legal submissions before the extradition hearing. He noted that the issuance of said documents seemed to be outside the legal procedure.
Mr. Munro further stated that he was not aware of any statutory right of “free movement” that the issuing state had to request. “I can confidently tell the court that it is an unorthodox application,” he added.
The letter from the French authorities was delivered to the courts and Judge Paul Burns said it appeared to be a letter from the French authorities requesting submissions from both parties, which had nothing to do with the court.
However, Leo Mulrooney BL for the State said that the Minister of Justice would not publish the submissions without a court ruling. Mr. Justice Burns said he would need to hear legal arguments on the matter.
Munro said he had reservations and wanted the appropriate legal provisions to be followed. “In my experience it is unprecedented,” he added.
In response, Mr. Justice Burns said that this had certainly not happened before, but this did not mean that it was not allowed. The case was mentioned for mention next Monday.
Bailey was not present in court for today’s list management procedure. He was detained on bail until July 15.
Last February, the Superior Court set May 5 as the starting date for the three-day hearing. However, the Covid-19 pandemic cast doubt on many court cases. The Chief Justice has previously given a general practice direction that only urgent matters should be addressed to minimize the number of people attending the court.
This is the third time that French authorities have sought Bailey’s surrender in connection with the death of Ms Du Plantier, whose severely beaten body was found outside her vacation home in Schull in December 1996.
The 63-year-old Englishman, residing in The Prairie, Liscaha, Schull, West Cork, was convicted of the murder of the French woman in her absence in a Paris court in May 2019. The judge of three courts Cour d’Assises in Paris accordingly, he imposed a 25-year prison sentence on Mr. Bailey in his absence.
Bailey denies any involvement in the death of Mrs. Du Plantier. He did not attend the French court and had no legal representation in the process, which he described as a “farce”.
Her lead attorney, Mr. Munro, previously told the Superior Court that they will oppose the surrender on grounds of “fundamental rights” and that the two previous extradition attempts by the authorities were “relevant” to her objection points. to the present attempt.
The court has also heard that Mr. Bailey swore an affidavit establishing certain matters of fact, particularly in relation to his health.
The Supreme Court refused to extradite Mr. Bailey in 2012, considering that surrender was prohibited because the alleged crime was committed outside of French territory and Irish law does not allow prosecution for the same crime when a non-Irish citizen commits it outside of its territory.
A second French extradition request regarding My Bailey was dismissed as an “abuse of process” by the High Court in 2017. On that occasion, Judge Tony Hunt argued that the “unique characteristics” of the case justified the “termination” of the minutes.
Mr. Justice Hunt said the Irish Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had concluded “long ago that there is no basis for (a) charging or prosecuting this matter in this jurisdiction, and unusually, a comprehensive statement came from the reasons for this procedural decision in the public domain during the previous case of the Supreme Court ”.
[ad_2]