Stanton v. O'Toole [1999] IEHC 52 (7th December, 1999)

Stanton v. O'Toole [1999] IEHC 52 (7th December, 1999)

The offence specified in the Scottish warrant corresponds with rape under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1990, an indictable offence under Irish law; delay in proceedings does not amount to exceptional circumstances as required by statute; certification and documentation are valid and admissible.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 52
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Cornelius Stanton; Defendant: Patrick O'Toole; Respondent: The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Extradition and Habeas Corpus / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Dismissal of both proceedings; extradition allowed.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Correspondence of Offences, Delay and Exceptional Circumstances, Fair Procedures, Habeas Corpus
Criminal Law Extradition Law Constitutional Law Extradition Correspondence of Offences Delay and Exceptional Circumstances Fair Procedures Habeas Corpus

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius Stanton

Plaintiff/applicant

Patrick O'Toole

Defendant

The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition and Habeas Corpus / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the offence specified in the Scottish warrant correspond with an indictable offence under Irish law?
  2. 2 Does delay in extradition proceedings constitute exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of extradition?
  3. 3 Is the certification of the warrant valid under Irish law?

Ratio Decidendi

The offence specified in the Scottish warrant corresponds with rape under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1990, an indictable offence under Irish law; delay in proceedings does not amount to exceptional circumstances as required by statute; certification and documentation are valid and admissible.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of both proceedings; extradition allowed.

Orders

  • Extradition ordered by District Court on 2 November 1998 to be carried out.
  • Order for delivery of applicant into custody to recite correspondence with rape under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1990.