MJELR v Koncis [2011] IESC 37 (29 July 2011)

MJELR v Koncis [2011] IESC 37 (29 July 2011)

There is no legal bar to issuing a third European Arrest Warrant for the same offences where previous proceedings did not result in a decision creating estoppel or res judicata. The High Court was entitled to accept information from the Latvian prosecutor under s.20 of the Act as amended. The appellant was not denied fair procedures, and the time spent in custody should be deducted from any sentence imposed in Latvia.

Citation
[2011] IESC 37
Parties
Applicant/respondent: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Respondent/appellant: Kaspars Koncis
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (european Arrest Warrant) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Surrender Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order for surrender affirmed.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Extradition Procedure, Mutual Recognition, Res Judicata, Fair Procedures, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Extradition Law European Union Law European Arrest Warrant Extradition Procedure Mutual Recognition Res Judicata Fair Procedures +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant/respondent

Kaspars Koncis

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (european Arrest Warrant) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Surrender Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a third European Arrest Warrant for the same offences is barred by an extant High Court order on a previous warrant
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied fair procedures
  3. 3 Whether the letter from the Latvian prosecutor was admissible evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal bar to issuing a third European Arrest Warrant for the same offences where previous proceedings did not result in a decision creating estoppel or res judicata. The High Court was entitled to accept information from the Latvian prosecutor under s.20 of the Act as amended. The appellant was not denied fair procedures, and the time spent in custody should be deducted from any sentence imposed in Latvia.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order for surrender affirmed.

Orders

  • Appellant to be surrendered to Latvia under the third European Arrest Warrant.
  • Time spent in custody in Ireland to be deducted from any sentence imposed in Latvia.