Attorney General -v- Frederick David Russell [2006] IEHC 164 (23 May 2006)

Attorney General -v- Frederick David Russell [2006] IEHC 164 (23 May 2006)

The existence of Article XI in the Ireland-US Extradition Treaty, together with the express assurances from US authorities, satisfies the requirement that the rule of specialty will be observed. There is no real risk the respondent will be prosecuted for bail-jumping or inter-state flight. Consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing for the extradition offences does not constitute punishment for another offence and does not breach the specialty rule. The requirements of s.29 of the Extradition Act 1965 are met and the order for committal must be made.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 164
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Frederick David Russell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition Application / High Court Judgment on Application for Committal Under S.29 of the Extradition Act, 1965
Outcome
Order for committal to await extradition granted.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Rule of Specialty, Sentencing, International Treaties, Correspondence of Offences
Criminal Law Extradition Law International Law Extradition Rule of Specialty Sentencing International Treaties Correspondence of Offences

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Frederick David Russell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Application / High Court Judgment on Application for Committal Under S.29 of the Extradition Act, 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule of specialty under Article XI of the Ireland-US Extradition Treaty precludes extradition where there is a risk of prosecution or punishment for offences other than those for which extradition is sought
  2. 2 Whether the respondent faces a real risk of prosecution for 'bail-jumping' or 'inter-state flight' contrary to the specialty rule
  3. 3 Whether consideration of uncharged conduct (such as bail-jumping) in sentencing for extradition offences breaches the specialty rule

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of Article XI in the Ireland-US Extradition Treaty, together with the express assurances from US authorities, satisfies the requirement that the rule of specialty will be observed. There is no real risk the respondent will be prosecuted for bail-jumping or inter-state flight. Consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing for the extradition offences does not constitute punishment for another offence and does not breach the specialty rule. The requirements of s.29 of the Extradition Act 1965 are met and the order for committal must be made.

Court Disposition

Order for committal to await extradition granted.

Orders

  • The respondent is committed to prison to await the order of the Minister for his extradition to the United States of America.