A.G. v. Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593; [2001] 2 ILRM 125 (19th December, 2000)

A.G. v. Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593; [2001] 2 ILRM 125 (19th December, 2000)

The acts alleged against the respondent, if proved, would constitute participation in a conspiracy to defraud under Irish law, as his involvement in the lulling phase was an essential part of the fraudulent scheme. Therefore, there is a corresponding offence in Irish law for the purposes of extradition.

Citation
[2001] 2 ILRM 125
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Albert John Oldridge
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Consultative Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extradition, Conspiracy to Defraud, Dual Criminality, Corresponding Offence, Washington Treaty
Criminal Law Extradition Law Extradition Conspiracy to Defraud Dual Criminality Corresponding Offence Washington Treaty

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

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Albert John Oldridge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Consultative Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the acts alleged against the respondent correspond to an offence in Irish law for extradition purposes
  2. 2 Whether conspiracy to defraud at common law is a corresponding offence under Irish law for the US charge of wire fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The acts alleged against the respondent, if proved, would constitute participation in a conspiracy to defraud under Irish law, as his involvement in the lulling phase was an essential part of the fraudulent scheme. Therefore, there is a corresponding offence in Irish law for the purposes of extradition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The questions in the case stated are answered: (i) Yes; (ii) Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law.