Coleman v. O'Toole [2003] IESC 60 (28 November 2003)

Coleman v. O'Toole [2003] IESC 60 (28 November 2003)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances beyond lapse of time; delay was not attributable to dilatoriness by authorities; no real risk of unfair trial established; prejudicial publicity insufficient due to fade factor; statutory requirements for relief under s.50(2)(bbb) not met.

Citation
[2003] IESC 60
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Oliver Coleman; Respondent: Patrick O'Toole
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition, Delay, Exceptional Circumstances, Unfair Trial, Prejudicial Publicity
Criminal Law Extradition Law Extradition Delay Exceptional Circumstances Unfair Trial Prejudicial Publicity

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Coleman

Plaintiff/appellant

Patrick O'Toole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lapse of time and other exceptional circumstances render extradition unjust, oppressive or invidious under s.50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Acts 1965 to 1994
  2. 2 Whether prejudicial publicity or loss of evidence constitutes exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of extradition

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances beyond lapse of time; delay was not attributable to dilatoriness by authorities; no real risk of unfair trial established; prejudicial publicity insufficient due to fade factor; statutory requirements for relief under s.50(2)(bbb) not met.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • order of High Court affirmed
  • extradition to proceed