O'Keeffe -v O'Toole [2007] IESC 13 (29 March 2007)

O'Keeffe -v O'Toole [2007] IESC 13 (29 March 2007)

Given the nearly ten-year lapse of time since conviction, the period of almost five months spent in Irish custody solely on extradition proceedings, the absence of any assurance that credit would be given for that time in the UK, and the fact that the maximum sentence in the UK would be six months, extradition would either be oppressive (if no credit is given) or futile (if credit is given). The respondent's own conduct contributed to the delay, but the unique circumstances and the risk of serving more than the statutory maximum render extradition unjust and oppressive under s. 50(2)(bbb).

Citation
[2007] IESC 13
Parties
Applicant / Respondent: William O'Keeffe; Respondent / Appellant: Patrick O'Toole (Assistant Garda Commissioner)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Extradition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; extradition refused.
Legal Topics
Extradition Refusal, Lapse of Time, Exceptional Circumstances, Remand Credit, Oppressiveness of Extradition
Criminal Law Extradition Law Extradition Refusal Lapse of Time Exceptional Circumstances Remand Credit Oppressiveness of Extradition

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William O'Keeffe

Applicant / Respondent

Patrick O'Toole (Assistant Garda Commissioner)

Respondent / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Refusing Extradition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it would be unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite the respondent under s. 47 of the Extradition Act, 1965, having regard to the lapse of time and other exceptional circumstances, including time spent in custody in Ireland on extradition proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the nearly ten-year lapse of time since conviction, the period of almost five months spent in Irish custody solely on extradition proceedings, the absence of any assurance that credit would be given for that time in the UK, and the fact that the maximum sentence in the UK would be six months, extradition would either be oppressive (if no credit is given) or futile (if credit is given). The respondent's own conduct contributed to the delay, but the unique circumstances and the risk of serving more than the statutory maximum render extradition unjust and oppressive under s. 50(2)(bbb).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; extradition refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court directing the release of the respondent and refusing extradition is affirmed.