The Attorney General -v- Marques & Anor [2016] IECA 374 (12 December 2016)

The Attorney General -v- Marques & Anor [2016] IECA 374 (12 December 2016)

The Court held that the appellant's fears regarding the US sentencing regime were speculative and did not establish a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The possibility that uncharged or acquitted conduct might be considered at sentencing on a balance of probabilities does not, even if proven, reach the high threshold required to refuse extradition. Differences in sentencing procedure or standard of proof do not amount to a breach of constitutional or international norms sufficient to bar extradition.

Citation
[2016] IECA 374
Parties
Respondent/applicant: The Attorney General; Appellant/respondent: Eric Eoin Marques; Amicus Curiae: Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Extradition
Outcome
appeal dismissed; extradition order affirmed
Legal Topics
Extradition to the United States, Sentencing Standards, Relevant Conduct at Sentencing, Standard of Proof at Sentencing, Flagrant Denial of Justice, Article 6 ECHR, Constitutional Fair Procedures, International Legal Norms
Criminal Law Extradition Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Extradition to the United States Sentencing Standards Relevant Conduct at Sentencing Standard of Proof at Sentencing +4 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Respondent/applicant

Eric Eoin Marques

Appellant/respondent

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Extradition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to the United States would expose the appellant to a sentencing regime constituting a flagrant denial of justice due to consideration of uncharged or acquitted conduct on a civil standard of proof
  2. 2 Whether the US sentencing regime breaches Irish constitutional or international norms of due process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant's fears regarding the US sentencing regime were speculative and did not establish a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The possibility that uncharged or acquitted conduct might be considered at sentencing on a balance of probabilities does not, even if proven, reach the high threshold required to refuse extradition. Differences in sentencing procedure or standard of proof do not amount to a breach of constitutional or international norms sufficient to bar extradition.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; extradition order affirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court committing the appellant to await extradition is affirmed.