The Supreme Court has ordered the extradition to the UK of a Co Roscommon man in connection with a £5 million tax fraud.
Thomas O’Connor, who opposed extradition on grounds including the impact of Brexit, is to report to gardaí within 24 hours arising from the five-judge court’s ruling on Wednesday afternoon.
Mr O’Connor had been given “more than every opportunity” to raise any points which might be deployed to resist his surrender, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Frank Clarke, said.
Mr O’Connor, Cloughbeirne, The Walk, Co Roscommon, was on bail pending the outcome of his battle to prevent his surrender to serve a four-and-a-half year sentence in connection with a £5m tax fraud.
He was sentenced in January 2007 following a six-week trial in London and faces further charges of absconding and breaching his bail in England.
After being arrested here under a European arrest warrant, the High Court ordered his extradition in December 2014.
The Court of Appeal later dismissed his appeal over that order and he then appealed to the Supreme Court which last February referred Brexit points raised by him to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for determination.
However, earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided a judgment given in September by the CJEU on another case, the RO case, effectively decided the Brexit points raised by Mr O’Connor.
In RO, the CJEU decided it was possible Brexit might prevent surrender but only where the person concerned was at risk of being deprived of rights recognised by the European Charter and the Framework Decision on extradition.
The Supreme Court could not see any basis for it to hold there is a “real risk” that any rights which Mr O’Connor may have will not be fully respected if surrendered to the UK.
Following that October 9th decision, the CJEU wrote to the Supreme Court saying it was entirely a matter for the Irish court whether it wished the O’Connor case reference to proceed before the CJEU or to withdraw the reference.
The Supreme Court listed the matter for Wednesday when lawyers for Mr O’Connor urged it not to withdraw the reference while counsel for the Minister for Justice took the opposite view.
Dr Michael Forde SC, for Mr O’Connor, argued withdrawing the reference would deprive Mr O’Connor of the right to be heard and to advance what counsel contended were different arguments on Brexit than those dismissed by the CJEU in RO.
Giving the court’s ruling, the Chief Justice said, unless substantial reasons are advanced to suggest the CJEU might now take a different view, a court of a member state is entitled to consider a question of European law has been definitely determined where there is a judgment on the point in question.
In this case, there was such a judgment, the RO judgment.
He rejected arguments the situation was affected by the fact that, because RO was in custody, the CJEU heard the RO case before that of Mr O’Connor, who is on bail, despite the O’Connor reference being made before the RO reference.
Mr O’Connor has a right to be heard and has been heard before the Supreme Court on all of the issues he wished to address, including the issues of European law subject of the reference to the CJEU, he said.
There were no issues of European law arising in the case which remained unclear and required further determination by the CJEU, he held. Nor was it necessary for the CJEU to decide a further question concerning Mr O’Connor’s right to be heard.
For all those reasons, the Supreme Court would withdraw the CJEU reference and, based on the answers given by the CJEU in RO to the Brexit issues, dismiss Mr O’Connor’s appeal and order his surrender to the UK, he said.
