A.G. v. Hilton [2004] IESC 51 (30 July 2004)
There is no clear, certain, or extant common law offence of cheating the public revenue in Ireland; the statutory reference in the 2001 Act does not create or revive such an offence. The law is too vague and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of correspondence for extradition.
- Citation
- [2004] IESC 51
- Parties
- Applicant/respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent/appellant: Anthony Karl Frank Baird Hilton
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Granting Extradition
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Corresponding Offence, Cheating the Public Revenue, Common Law Offences, Extradition Requirements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Attorney General
Applicant/respondent
Anthony Karl Frank Baird Hilton
Respondent/appellant
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Granting Extradition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the common law offence of cheating the public revenue exists in Ireland as a corresponding offence for extradition purposes
- 2 Whether the statutory reference in the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 preserves such an offence
Ratio Decidendi
There is no clear, certain, or extant common law offence of cheating the public revenue in Ireland; the statutory reference in the 2001 Act does not create or revive such an offence. The law is too vague and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of correspondence for extradition.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Order of the High Court granting extradition set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment