THE HIGH Court has deferred its decision on whether to extradite journalist Ian Bailey to France in connection with the killing of French film-maker Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Co Cork 14 years ago.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said yesterday that before giving his decision, he wanted to hear submissions from lawyers for Mr Bailey and the Director of Public Prosecutions, relating to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court ordering the extradition of a man to Sweden.
He adjourned the matter to February 10th when he will hear those submissions.
Mr Bailey (53), Schull, Co Cork, has always denied any involvement in the killing of Ms Toscan du Plantier (39), whose body was discovered near her holiday home in Schull on December 23rd, 1996.
Mr Bailey was arrested by gardaí investigating the killing but no charges were ever preferred against him. However, the French authorities are now seeking his extradition.
Mr Justice Peart said he particularly wanted to hear submissions from lawyers about those aspects of the recent Olsson judgment of the Supreme Court relating to extradition to Sweden requests for the purpose of investigating Thomas Olsson.
He also asked counsel to address the findings of the Supreme Court in the Olsson case in relation to legal assistance under the Attorney General’s scheme for persons opposing extradition.
The Supreme Court judgment given earlier this month relates to Thomas Olsson, the first person to be extradited to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He was arrested here in July 2008 under a 2006 European arrest warrant in relation to four offences of organised or armed robbery and arson in Sweden in October 2005.
His appeal against extradition centred on two issues – the nature of the legal assistance available to him and his claim that a “decision” to charge him with, and try him for, the offences as stated in the European warrant was not made as required by the 2003 Act.
Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell, giving the Supreme Court decision, dismissed arguments that the provision of legal assistance under the Attorney General’s scheme fell short of what was required for a person whose return was sought under a European warrant. He also rejected arguments that the Act imposed a more extensive obligation relating to the provision of legal assistance.
On the second argument, that no “decision” had been made by the Swedish authorities to prosecute Mr Olsson, Mr Justice O’Donnell said there was a clear intention by the Swedish authorities to bring proceedings against Mr Olsson.
The European warrant itself stated the arrest and surrender of Mr Olsson was being sought “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution” and the 2003 Act did not intend words such as “charge” or “prosecution” should only be understood as meaning a charge or prosecution as in the Irish criminal justice system, he found.
It was clear Mr Olsson was sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and that Sweden intended to bring proceedings against him, the judge said.
It would be entirely within the European framework decision related to extradition and the Act if, after further investigation, the Swedish authorities decided not to prosecute as there would still have been an “intention” to prosecute and a decision to do so when the European warrant was executed, he added.
