Bolger v. Haughton & Ors [2005] IEHC 364 (28 October 2005)

Bolger v. Haughton & Ors [2005] IEHC 364 (28 October 2005)

The applicant failed to establish that his constitutional or Convention rights were breached by the conduct of the trial and sentencing in absentia, as he was represented throughout and no prejudice was shown. The delay attributable to the State (three years and eight months) was exceptional, but the combination of lapse of time and other circumstances, including the applicant's medical condition, did not render it unjust, oppressive or invidious to order his extradition. Technical errors in the warrants and procedural issues did not invalidate the process. The application for judicial review and for release under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965 was refused.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 364
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Peter Bolger; Respondent: Judge Gerard Haughton; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Defendant: Patrick O'Toole
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Special Summons (extradition) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused; application for judicial review and for release under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extradition Proceedings, Trial and Sentencing in Absentia, Right to Fair Trial, Delay and Lapse of Time in Extradition, Medical Grounds in Extradition, Errors in Extradition Warrants, Correspondence of Offences, Judicial Discretion in Extradition
Criminal Law Extradition Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Extradition Proceedings Trial and Sentencing in Absentia Right to Fair Trial Delay and Lapse of Time in Extradition +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Bolger

Applicant/plaintiff

Judge Gerard Haughton

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Patrick O'Toole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Special Summons (extradition) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's extradition should be quashed due to alleged breaches of constitutional and Convention rights arising from trial and sentencing in absentia
  2. 2 Whether delay and lapse of time, combined with exceptional circumstances, render extradition unjust, oppressive or invidious under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965
  3. 3 Whether errors in the extradition warrants or procedural defects invalidate the extradition process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that his constitutional or Convention rights were breached by the conduct of the trial and sentencing in absentia, as he was represented throughout and no prejudice was shown. The delay attributable to the State (three years and eight months) was exceptional, but the combination of lapse of time and other circumstances, including the applicant's medical condition, did not render it unjust, oppressive or invidious to order his extradition. Technical errors in the warrants and procedural issues did not invalidate the process. The application for judicial review and for release under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965 was refused.

Court Disposition

Relief refused; application for judicial review and for release under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965 dismissed.

Orders

  • Refusal of order of certiorari quashing the District Judge's extradition order.
  • Refusal of release under s. 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965.