Louth man loses court appeal against Spain extradition

A Co Louth man’s claim that he is being unlawfully detained on foot of a Spanish extradition order has been rejected by the High…

A Co Louth man’s claim that he is being unlawfully detained on foot of a Spanish extradition order has been rejected by the High Court.

On May 27th, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, made an order for the extradition to Spain of Michael Dermot McArdle (36), of Brookfield, Heynestown, Dundalk.

Mr McArdle’s extradition was sought on a charge of the alleged murder of his wife, Kelly Anne, who died following a fall from a hotel balcony in Marbella on February 12th, 2000.

Last week, Mr McArdle brought proceedings under Article 40 of the Constitution challenging the lawfulness of his detention in Clover Hill Prison on grounds of an alleged error in the committal warrant which, he contended, made the detention order unlawful.

READ MORE

The application was heard by Mr Justice Micheal Peart who, in a reserved judgment today, dismissed the claim.

The judge noted the State had accepted there was an error in the committal warrant in relation to Mr McArdle in that the warrant stated the extradition order was made under Section 16.2 of the European Arrest Warrant Acts 2003 when, Mr Justice Peart said, the order had to be made under Section 16.1 of the same act.

But Mr Justice Peart said there could be no doubt whatsoever from the terms of the judgment of Mr Justice Finnegan that the latter had decided to grant an order under Section 16.1.

Mr Justice Finnegan had never mentioned Section 16.2 in his decision as it did not apply to the McArdle case.

The State had said the incorrect subsection was inserted in the committal warrant through human error.

Mr Justice Peart said he was also satisfied no fundamental right of Mr McArdle had been breached or even threatened by the error in the warrant.

The order for Mr McArdle was the first of its kind to be made here under the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, which came into effect in January 2004. He has 15 days to appeal against the making of the order, with the time running from May 27th.