THE LEGAL team of Ian Bailey has told the High Court in Dublin that the attempt by the French authorities to extradite him to France is an insult to the Irish State.
In what is understood to be the first case of its type in Europe, The Cork-based Englishman is wanted in France for questioning in connection with the death of French film-maker Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Cork 14 years ago.
He had been arrested during the Garda investigation in the 1990s, but the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided not to charge him.
Mr Bailey (53), Schull, west Cork, was in the High Court for the extradition hearing yesterday, accompanied by his partner.
The former journalist has always denied any involvement in the killing of Ms Toscan du Plantier (30). Her body was discovered near her holiday home in Schull on December 23rd, 1996.
Robert Barron SC, prosecuting, told Mr Justice Michael Peart that if “the respondent” was sent for trial in France, he would be tried by three judges and nine members of the public deliberating together.
He would be subject to questions from the judges and lawyers, as well as the family of Ms Toscan du Plantier. Inferences could be drawn if he exercised his right to silence.
Mr Barron read out an affidavit given by Mr Bailey in which he described himself as a British subject living in Cork since 1991. He said a woman called Marie Farrell had given a false statement to gardaí investigating Ms Toscan du Plantier’s death.
It had incriminated him, but Ms Farrell had recanted her statement in 2005.
Mr Bailey added that his arrests and the false accusations had caused him great distress and that their leaking to the press had caused a lot of unwanted media attention.
It was through the media that he learned two years ago that he was of interest to the French authorities.
The authorities never contacted him until he was arrested at his home in May of this year as he was preparing for his law exams. Despite the distress, he said, his law degree was conferred on him earlier this month.
Finally, Mr Bailey said that due to this case, he was unable to visit his family in the UK, including his 86-year-old mother.
Martin Giblin SC, for Mr Bailey, said France’s request was an insult to the Irish State, its legal system and his client’s statutory human rights. He told the court it would be an insult to justice to surrender him.
Mr Giblin said that until 2005, Mr Bailey could not be extradited for a crime with which the DPP had decided not to charge him. However the law changed in 2005. Mr Giblin added that Mr Bailey also had a right not to be surrendered as there was no new evidence.
“There is no doubt that the Irish authorities wouldn’t be allowed to prosecute him without new evidence.”
He said the DPP made his decision not to charge Mr Bailey in 1997.
“He was getting on with his life. These proceedings in 2009 came as a great shock to him.”
Mr Giblin said the French authorities had “commenced a process” in 1997, but had never informed his client.
“That wouldn’t happen here as a matter of fair procedure,” he said. “They haven’t explained what they were doing since 1997. They didn’t tell Mr Bailey that there was something cooking in France.
“They allowed time to pass and events to occur,” Mr Giblin continued. “The delay, the enactment of legislation, the way he was informed all smacks of cat-and-mouse games. They must have known about the decision of the DPP. The dogs in the street knew.”
Mr Giblin said that if the court was to rule against the defence, it would amount to a violation of fair procedure. Mr Bailey had co- operated with the Garda inquiry and all of the evidence gathered then should not be used against him in a different jurisdiction.
“The very act of surrendering flies in the face of the DPP’s decision not to prosecute him,” he said, adding that it would be unconstitutional and against the European Convention on Human Rights.
He said the situation facing his client now could not have been dreamt up. The case continues.