Bolger -v- O'Toole & Bolger -v- Judge Haughton [2008] IESC 38 (17 June 2008)

Bolger -v- O'Toole & Bolger -v- Judge Haughton [2008] IESC 38 (17 June 2008)

The Supreme Court held that while there was an exceptional lapse of time and some culpable delay by the English authorities, the majority of the delay was attributable to Mr Bolger's own legal actions. Illness and sentence length were not exceptional circumstances. It was not unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite Mr Bolger for the theft and fraudulent trading offences, but extradition for the forgery offences could not proceed due to lack of correspondence with Irish law. The judicial review appeal failed as there was no breach of constitutional or ECHR rights and the District Court had no jurisdiction to refuse extradition on grounds of delay.

Citation
[2008] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent; Applicant/appellant: Peter Bolger; Defendant/appellant: Patrick O'Toole; Respondent: Judge Gerard Haughton; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Extradition and Judicial Review Appeals / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal in 461/05 allowed (order for release set aside); appeal in 47/06 dismissed (judicial review refused)
Legal Topics
Extradition Under Extradition Act 1965, Lapse of Time and Exceptional Circumstances in Extradition, Correspondence of Offences for Extradition, Judicial Review of Extradition Orders, Constitutional and ECHR Rights in Extradition, Delay and Illness as Grounds for Resisting Extradition
Criminal Law Extradition Law Constitutional Law Extradition Under Extradition Act 1965 Lapse of Time and Exceptional Circumstances in Extradition Correspondence of Offences for Extradition Judicial Review of Extradition Orders Constitutional and ECHR Rights in Extradition +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Bolger

Plaintiff/respondent; Applicant/appellant

Patrick O'Toole

Defendant/appellant

Judge Gerard Haughton

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition and Judicial Review Appeals / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lapse of time and other exceptional circumstances made it unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite Mr Bolger under s.50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act 1965
  2. 2 Whether the offences of forgery for which Mr Bolger was convicted in England corresponded to offences under Irish law for extradition purposes
  3. 3 Whether Mr Bolger's constitutional or ECHR rights were breached by the extradition process or the conduct of his trial in England

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while there was an exceptional lapse of time and some culpable delay by the English authorities, the majority of the delay was attributable to Mr Bolger's own legal actions. Illness and sentence length were not exceptional circumstances. It was not unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite Mr Bolger for the theft and fraudulent trading offences, but extradition for the forgery offences could not proceed due to lack of correspondence with Irish law. The judicial review appeal failed as there was no breach of constitutional or ECHR rights and the District Court had no jurisdiction to refuse extradition on grounds of delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal in 461/05 allowed (order for release set aside); appeal in 47/06 dismissed (judicial review refused)

Orders

  • Order for release of Mr Bolger under s.50(2)(bbb) set aside; extradition to proceed for theft and fraudulent trading offences
  • Order for release of Mr Bolger insofar as extradition was ordered for the three forgery offences (no correspondence)