Lynch v. A.G. & Ors [2003] IEHC 630 (8 April 2003)

Lynch v. A.G. & Ors [2003] IEHC 630 (8 April 2003)

Concurrent proceedings are permissible but must be heard together; Garda misconduct in soliciting information using extradition warrants was improper but did not result in prejudice or breach of constitutional rights; delay alone, absent exceptional circumstances, does not justify refusal of extradition under s.50(2)(bbb); statutory requirements for extradition were satisfied and no defence under s.50(2)(bbb) was established.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 630
Parties
Applicant: Wayne Patrick Lynch; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Chief State Solicitor; Respondent: Patrick O'Toole
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Special Summons Under Extradition Act / Final Judgment
Outcome
Extradition order granted; judicial review and s.50 relief refused.
Legal Topics
Extradition Procedure, Abuse of Process, Delay in Extradition, Constitutional Rights, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Extradition Law Constitutional Law Extradition Procedure Abuse of Process Delay in Extradition Constitutional Rights Judicial Review

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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Patrick Lynch

Applicant

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Chief State Solicitor

Respondent

Patrick O'Toole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Special Summons Under Extradition Act / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether concurrent judicial review and s.50 proceedings are permissible and should be heard together
  2. 2 Whether alleged Garda misconduct in using extradition warrants to solicit information justifies refusal of extradition
  3. 3 Whether delay alone in issuing/executing extradition warrants can justify refusal of extradition

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent proceedings are permissible but must be heard together; Garda misconduct in soliciting information using extradition warrants was improper but did not result in prejudice or breach of constitutional rights; delay alone, absent exceptional circumstances, does not justify refusal of extradition under s.50(2)(bbb); statutory requirements for extradition were satisfied and no defence under s.50(2)(bbb) was established.

Court Disposition

Extradition order granted; judicial review and s.50 relief refused.

Orders

  • Applicant's extradition ordered under s.47 of the Extradition Act 1965.
  • Application for release under s.50 refused.