Daly v. A.G. [2004] IEHC 363 (16 November 2004)
The lapse of time in this case was not exceptional or culpable, and there were no additional exceptional circumstances. The issue of intention to prosecute was not properly raised or pursued at the appropriate stage and is not a ground for relief under Section 50. Relief is refused.
- Citation
- [2004] IEHC 363
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John James Daly; Defendant: Attorney General
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 16 November 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under S.50 of the Extradition Act, 1965 / Post Order Application for Relief Against Extradition Order
- Outcome
- Relief refused; extradition order stands.
- Legal Topics
- Extradition Proceedings, Delay in Prosecution, Intention to Prosecute, Relief Under Extradition Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John James Daly
Plaintiff
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.50 of the Extradition Act, 1965 / Post Order Application for Relief Against Extradition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay in extradition proceedings renders extradition unjust, oppressive or invidious under S.50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act, 1965
- 2 Whether there was a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution authority's intention to prosecute at the time the warrant was sought
Ratio Decidendi
The lapse of time in this case was not exceptional or culpable, and there were no additional exceptional circumstances. The issue of intention to prosecute was not properly raised or pursued at the appropriate stage and is not a ground for relief under Section 50. Relief is refused.
Court Disposition
Relief refused; extradition order stands.
Orders
- Application for relief under S.50 of the Extradition Act, 1965 refused.
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