Farmer fights extradition to North

A FARMER began a High Court challenge yesterday to his extradition to Northern Ireland where he is charged with conspiracy to…

A FARMER began a High Court challenge yesterday to his extradition to Northern Ireland where he is charged with conspiracy to defraud by not paying agricultural levies on grain taken across the Border into the Republic.

Mr John Oliver Byrne (44), originally from Northern Ireland but now living at Mountpleasant, Dundalk, Co Louth, is taking the case against the Garda authorities and the State, which is supporting the extradition.

Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Mr Byrne, said that in April 1995 his client was arrested in Dundalk on foot of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland dated December 1994.

The warrant charged that Mr Byrne, between June 1st, 1986, and August 4th, 1988, conspired with other persons to defraud contrary to common law.

READ MORE

Mr MacEntee said the situation as alleged by the prosecution was that Mr Byrne brought grain from Northern Ireland to the Republic at a time when he should have been paying monetary compensation amounts (MCAs).

It was alleged that he conspired with named people and did various acts by agreement and that this constituted a conspiracy to defraud the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

Mr MacEntee said the net issue in this case was that the payments it was alleged Mr Byrne ought to have made and fraudulently did not make in a conspiracy constituted a Revenue offence within the meaning of the Extradition Act 1994 as amended. Under the Act, Revenue offences were exempt from extradition proceedings.

In the Act, a Revenue offence was detained as being in connection with taxes, duties or exchange control. He contended that the payments Mr Byrne allegedly ought to have made to the Intervention Board had all these characteristics and were consequently Revenue offences.

Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the State, said the alleged offences were not Revenue offences. The purpose of the payments was not to raise money but to facilitate the movement of goods. Therefore, the charges did come within the Extradition Act.

The hearing continues before Mr Justice Kelly today.