THE SUPREME Court has been convened to sit this morning in the case of Ian Bailey, who is appealing an extradition order to France in connection with the killing of French film-maker Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
Today’s listing comes amid speculation Mr Bailey’s appeal against the extradition order may not proceed on Monday as scheduled. A five-judge Supreme Court had been convened to hear the appeal, listed to run for three days.
However, lawyers for the State had told the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Susan Denham, last week there could be “some developments outside the control of the State” that might affect the appeal. No detail was given concerning those “developments”. The Chief Justice had asked to be informed of anything that might happen to affect the listing of the appeal and the matter has been listed for mention before her this morning.
Senior counsel Martin Giblin, for Mr Bailey, told the court last week his side was ready to go on, subject to a “discrete issue of fact” about which the State had been informed. Mr Bailey remains on bail pending the appeal outcome.
He is wanted for questioning by an investigating judge in France in connection with the murder of Toscan du Plantier (39), whose body was discovered near her holiday home in Schull on December 23rd, 1996. Mr Bailey (53), The Prairie, Schull, Co Cork, has always denied any involvement in the murder. He was arrested by investigating gardaí and the DPP found no basis to charge him.
Last March, the High Court ruled he should be extradited. Mr Justice Michael Peart subsequently granted the certificate necessary for Mr Bailey to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court after certifying an issue arising from his judgment was of such exceptional public importance it should be determined by the Supreme Court.
That issue is whether the surrender of a person is prohibited by section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 where the offence for which surrender is sought is committed here and where the victim is a national of the State requesting extradition that seeks to exercise an extra- territorial jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own laws, when the DPP has decided not to prosecute.
