[ad_1]
The High Court has ruled that Ian Bailey cannot be extradited to France to serve a 25-year prison sentence imposed by a French court for the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in West Cork 24 years ago.
Judge Paul Burns issued his ruling on Monday rejecting the state’s request for Mr. Bailey’s extradition, ruling that surrender remains prohibited under article 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The judge also determined that delivery of the English was prevented due to an “acquired or acquired right” by Mr. Bailey “for the benefit of the previous judicial determinations denying said delivery.”
Sophie Toscan du Plantier, who was found murdered in West Cork in 1996.
Speaking outside the Criminal Courts of Justice after sentencing, Mr. Bailey’s attorney Frank Buttimer said his client was “extremely relieved” by the decision and that the impact on his life over the past 24 years had been “extremely challenging”.
Bailey (63) was arrested in the Criminal Justice Courts building in December 2019, following a European Arrest Warrant (ODE) issued by the French authorities.
This was the third attempt by the French authorities to seek the surrender of Mr. Bailey in connection with the death of Ms. Du Plantier, whose body was found outside her holiday home in Schull in December 1996.
Supreme Court
The French authorities previously requested the surrender of Mr. Bailey in 2010. The High Court ordered his extradition, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision in 2012, which held that Article 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 prohibited surrender. because the alleged crime was committed. outside French territory and Irish law did not allow prosecution for the same offense when committed outside French territory by a non-Irish citizen. Mr. Bailey is a British citizen.
A second French extradition request with respect to Mr. Bailey was dismissed as an “abuse of process” by the High Court in July 2017. On that occasion, Mr. Justice Tony Hunt held that the “unique characteristics” of the case justified the “termination” of the proceedings. He said the minister was “prevented” or prevented from obtaining a warrant for the surrender of Mr. Bailey in light of the 2012 Supreme Court ruling on relevant identical facts.
The former journalist, based in The Prairie, Liscaha, Schull, West Cork, was found guilty of the murder of the French woman in her absence in a Paris court in May 2019. La Cour d’Assises (court of first instance ) of three judges Accordingly, Paris imposed a 25-year prison term on Mr. Bailey in his absence. Mr. Bailey, who denies any involvement in the death of Ms. Du Plantier, did not attend the French court and did not have legal representation in the process, which he has described as a “farce”.
Three-day hearing
The Englishman had contested his surrender during a three-day extradition hearing in High Court last July, and his lawyers alleged that a request to extradite his client to France for a third time was “an abuse of process.”
In opposing a request for Mr. Bailey’s surrender to France, Ronan Munro SC argued that Mr. Bailey had an “ironclad and impregnable right” not to be surrendered to France, which had not been threatened in any way by subsequent legal developments .
The lawyer said there was a binding judgment from the Supreme Court in 2012 prohibiting the surrender of Mr. Bailey based on section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which remained intact and intact. Furthermore, the Criminal Law (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) Law of 2019 did not materially affect the Supreme Court’s decision in 2012 and therefore the High Court was bound by it.
The law has changed since the High Court decision in 2017, allowing any Irish citizen or habitual resident of Ireland to be prosecuted here for a crime committed outside of Ireland.
Bailey’s legal team had also opposed the surrender of English based on the absence of an appeal by the State of the High Court’s decision not to extradite the defendant to France in 2017, which they said created “a estoppel problem “. [a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law].
David Conlan Smyth SC, also representing Mr. Bailey, invited the court to consider that there had been “excessive, excessive and guilty delay” by the issuing State to prosecute the former journalist, which, he said, remained without explanation . The lawyer highlighted that 24 years had passed since the criminal investigation began and seven years since the Supreme Court denied the request. “At what point does the EAW become so oppressive and burdensome that Article 6 of the right to a fair trial is violated? We say that that date has passed ”, he argued.
‘Safe haven’
In response, the attorney for the Minister of Justice, Robert Barron SC, said that “in a strange way” Ireland had become a “safe haven” for Bailey because he could not travel anywhere outside the European Union at the risk of being arrested. He said that Ms. Du Plantier’s family felt they had not achieved justice and that the High Court had a “prima facie” obligation to deliver the Englishman, who for 24 years was suspected of having killed one’s mother, to France. .
Ian Bailey arrives at Dublin High Court today. Photograph: Paul Faith / AFP via Getty Images
The Irish High Court did not know what evidence would be available to the French authorities in the event of a new trial for Mr. Bailey in France and what problems would likely arise, Mr. Barron stated.
At the beginning of his sentencing on Monday afternoon, Judge Burns said he would simply pronounce the “extended” sentence and not issue any formal warrant. It deferred the issuance of a formal order for two weeks to allow the state to request authorization to appeal the matter.
In the 63 page written judgment, Mr. Judge Burns emphasized that Mr. Bailey’s guilt or innocence with respect to the murder of Ms. Toscan du Plantier was not an issue in the proceedings and, instead, the Superior Court would it was concerned only with whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for the defendant to be handed over to France on foot of the EAW in court.
Modified
With regard to section 44 of the 2003 ODE Act, the judge noted that Irish law had been amended so that Ireland now exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of murder not only when the alleged offender is an Irish citizen, but also when the alleged offender habitually resides. within the state. Mr Bailey is, and was at all times, ordinarily a resident within the State and Ireland could therefore exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over him in respect of a murder committed outside of Ireland, he said.
“However, that amendment has not created a basis for reciprocity between France and Ireland with regard to the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the crime of murder in this case,” said the judge. Furthermore, it noted that the French basis for extraterritoriality in this case remains the nationality of the victim, while the Irish basis for such extraterritoriality is the nationality or habitual residence of the alleged perpetrator. “That being the case, the delivery of the defendant is excluded under article 44 of the 2003 Law,” he said.
Judge Burns said that the amended statutory provision did not indicate an intention to deprive individuals who have accrued a benefit or right through an earlier court determination. “In the absence of such intention, the defendant has the right to withhold the benefit or the right not to be delivered to France as determined by the Supreme Court in Bailey No. 1 and the High Court in Bailey No. 2,” the judge said.
Costs
Mr. Bailey was present in court for the hour-long hearing and wore a scarf to cover his mouth.
The matter was included for next October 27. Mr. Bailey was placed in custody on bail until then, but the judge said his assistance was not needed on that date.
Conlan Smyth, for Mr. Bailey, said his client intended to request the costs on October 27.
In a post-sentencing statement, Mr. Bailey’s attorney, Frank Buttimer, said: “Mr. Bailey is extremely relieved by the decision that has been made today. The impact on his life of the whole situation has been a great challenge for him for the last 24 years. He always expresses his sadness and sympathy for the late Madame Toscan du Plantier, while at the same time always maintaining his innocence in relation to anything or any connection to that terrible crime … The matter, of course, is not finalized because the judgment has been must be formalized and the State must take a position on whether they will continue. That is entirely a matter for the State and, other than that, Mr. Bailey intends to return to West Cork to try and carry on with the rest of his life to the best of his ability, subject to any other decisions the State makes regarding with any appeal entitled “.
[ad_2]