Extradition post-Brexit: the Irish questions

15 November 2021

On 9 November 2021 Advocate General Kokott handed down her opinion in respect of Case C-479/21 concerning Mr Sn and Mr Sd following a reference from the Irish Supreme Court which was made on 3 August 2021. Her opinion stated that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement and TCA which ensure the continuation of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of warrants issued by the United Kingdom (“UK”) during the transition period are binding on Ireland.

If the Court of Justice follows this opinion, it would mean that any European arrest warrants issued by the UK Judicial Authority prior to or during the transition period, including where the individual was not arrested until after the transition period, are valid and binding on Ireland despite the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Irish Supreme Court’s reference

The questions referred were as follows:

  1. Can the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, which provide for the continuance of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the UK, during the transition period provided for in that agreement, be considered binding on Ireland having regard to its significant content regarding the area of freedom security and justice (“AFSJ”); and
  2. Can the provisions of the Agreement on Trade and Cooperation (“TCA”) which provide for the continuance of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of the UK after the relevant transition period, be considered binding on Ireland having regard to its significant AFSJ content?

The Facts

Mr Sd was arrested in Ireland under a European arrest warrant dated 20 March 2020 issued by the UK which sought his surrender in respect of a prison sentence of eight years. Mr Sd was arrested in Ireland on 9 September 2020 (before the end of the transition period[1]). On 8 February 2021 the Irish High Court made an order for his surrender to the UK and he was committed to prison.

Mr Sn was arrested in Ireland on 25 February 2021 (after the end of the transition period) under a European arrest warrant dated 5 October 2020 issued by the UK (before the end of the transition period[2]), which sought his surrender for the prosecution of 14 offences. He was remanded in custody pending extradition proceedings.

In February and March 2021, applications were made on behalf of the two requested persons seeking a determination under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland concerning the legality of their detention on the basis that the European arrest warrant regime no longer applied between Ireland and the UK. The application was refused and they appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered it possible that the arrangements set out in the agreements relating to the European arrest warrant regime are not binding on Ireland and referred the matter to the CJEU as an urgent matter (under Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice).

The Questions Arising

Essentially the court has been asked to determine whether Ireland is obliged to execute European arrest warrants issued by the UK, notwithstanding the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. This question required some technical analysis of the EU law behind the two relevant agreements (“the agreements”).

The AG began by noting that on the face of the agreements it appears that the execution of European arrest warrants is addressed by the provisions therein. However, she went on to consider the possible relevance of Protocol No 21 (to the TEU and TFEU adopted in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007). Protocol 21 provides that Ireland is not bound by EU measures related to AFSJ, unless it expressly opts in to the measure in question; Ireland has not opted in. Accordingly, the question becomes:  whether Ireland needed to have “opted in” to the provisions relating to the European arrest warrant [in the Withdrawal Agreement and TCA] in order for those provisions concerning the continuance of the European arrest warrant regime during the transition period and after to apply.

That question in turn depends on whether Protocol No 21 applies to the provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement 2020 and TCA. Protocol 21 will not apply to those provisions if the EU based the agreements on its external powers to conclude a withdrawal agreement (Article 50(2) TEU) and an association agreement (Article 217 TFEU) and not on its competence relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. Of central importance was the fact that the two surrender regimes (Article 50(2) TEU and Article 217 TFEU) did not create new obligations for Ireland but rather, extended existing ones.

Ireland’s obligations in respect of the European arrest warrant

Ireland’s obligations in respect of the European arrest warrant predated the Lisbon Treaty and Protocol 21 under Framework Decision 2002/582 and the amending Framework Decision 2009/299. Both are binding on Ireland even though Ireland has not explicitly notified the Council that it wished to take part in their adoption or “opted in”.

However, the UK was no longer a Member State at the time of issuing the two arrest warrants in the present case and so the Framework Decision 2002/584, which refers to the European arrest warrant in the context of cooperation between Member States, could not serve as the basis for their execution.

The obligations therefore appeared to derive from the Withdrawal Agreement which entered into force on 1 February 2020. The transition period ended on 31 December 2020 and Article 127 provides that EU law should be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period unless the Withdrawal Agreement provides otherwise (which it does not):

Article 62(1) of Part Three of the Withdrawal agreement covers on-going judicial cooperation proceedings in criminal matters and provides:

‘In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following acts shall apply as follows:

(a)      …

(b)      Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA … shall apply in respect of European arrest warrants where the requested person was arrested before the end of the transition period for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant, …;

Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement also provides that Member States may decide that they will not surrender their nationals to the United Kingdom. The Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Slovenia had made this decision at the relevant time but Ireland had not.

Finally, the TCA 2021 came into force on 1 May 2021. Title VII in Part Three of the TCA (Articles 596 to 632) establishes an extradition regime between the Member States and the United Kingdom. Article 632 provides that Title VII ‘shall apply in respect of European arrest warrants issued in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA … by a State before the end of the transition period where the requested person has not been arrested for the purpose of its execution before the end of the transition period’.

AG Opinion

The AG robustly rejected the arguments that the European arrest warrant regime fell within the scope of Protocol No 21 which meant that Ireland was not required to participate: Protocol No 21 only applies in respect of measures that have been, or should have been, based on a competence derived from Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty. Conversely, a measure that touches on the area of freedom, security and justice will not be covered by the protocol if it is not necessary to base it on such a competence.

The opinion states that the agreements are based on the competence relating to the arrangements for a withdrawal (Article 50(2) TEU) and on the competence to conclude an association agreement (Article 217 TFEU). The competence is not based on matters relating to the AFSJ.

She further considered whether Article 62(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement or Part Three Title VII of TCA (relating to extradition arrangements) should additionally have been based on a competence relating to the AFSJ. She rejected arguments that the predominant purpose test could not be applied when measures touch upon Protocol No 21 and noted that the Withdrawal Agreement must necessarily be able to deal with the full range of matters covered by EU law.

She concluded that Article 62(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement is correctly based on Article 50(2) TEU and Part Three Title VII TCA on the basis of Article 217 TFEU alone. It is not necessary to combine that competence with a competence relating to the area of freedom, security and justice.

References

[1]  Article 62(1)(b) and Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement apply and provide that Framework Decision 2002/584 will continue to apply in respect of the European arrest warrant.

[2]  Article 632 of the TCA provides that the new extradition regime established by Part Three, Title VII, of that agreement is to apply to this scenario.

Further information

Kingsley Napley provides specialist advice for individuals and businesses subject to criminal and civil investigations relating to breaches of competition law.  For further information on the issues raised in this blog post, please contact a member of our criminal team

 

About the author

Áine Kervick is an Associate in our Criminal Litigation team. She has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and advises individuals in respect of extradition requests and INTERPOL Red Notices. She is also experienced in acting for individuals in internal investigations with a focus on legal professional privilege in criminal investigations and has written a number of articles on the subject.

 

Latest Blogs & News

Extradition post-Brexit: the Irish questions

On 9 November 2021 Advocate General Kokott handed down her opinion in respect of Case C-479/21 concerning Mr Sn and Mr Sd following a reference from the Irish Supreme Court which was made on 3 August 2021. Her opinion stated that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement and TCA which ensure the continuation of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of warrants issued by the United Kingdom (“UK”) during the transition period are binding on Ireland.

Extradition case - Wozniak and another v Poland [2021] EWHC 2557 (Admin)

Partner, Rebecca Niblock has commented in the latest edition of Criminal Law Week on an extradition case - Wozniak and another v Poland [2021] EWHC 2557 (Admin).

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q3 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period July 2021 - September 2021. 

Extradition post-Brexit: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?

Rebecca Niblock and Edward Grange examine the key changes & similarities to extradition law following Brexit. The introduction of new surrender arrangements under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Changes effected under the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020.

The Tail Wagging the Dog - Hourly Rates Review 2021

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has approved the new guideline hourly rates (GHR) proposed by the CJC and the Stewart committee which will come into effect on 1st October 2021.
These new rates are a result of the final report of the Civil Justice Council released at the end of July 2021 and the forerunning consultation that took place between 8 January and 31 March 2021.

 

 

‘De-risking’ and financial exclusion

Rebecca Niblock and Mary Young follow on from an article they wrote in September 2020 about whether there should be a right to banking, and the possibly unintended consequences of banking facilities being withdrawn or frozen.

Upheavals in extradition law

In a article originally written for Legal Action Group, Rebecca Niblock and Edward Grange,  examine two important changes since the last edition of Extradition law: a practitioner’s guide.

Vue Cinema Chain fined following death of cinema-goer

On 20 July 2021 Vue Entertainment Ltd (‘Vue’) was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £130,000 following a fatal accident at the Star City cinema in Birmingham on 9 March 2018.

The CMA’s Annual Report and digital markets - a time of change

This last year has undoubtedly been a busy and challenging one for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It has seen additional activity arising from its response to the Covid pandemic, the further responsibilities it has taken on post-Brexit (see our related blog: #Brexit, the CMA and competition enforcement), and its work concerning the design and implementation of a pro-competition regime in digital markets. This article looks at its recently published Annual Report and Impact Assessment, calls for change, and the work it has been doing in relation to digital markets.

Charities and internal investigations

Charities are not immune to financial crime, fraud or other wrong-doing; there are a number of ways in which charities may be exploited by criminals. 

Record fine of £90 million for Southern Water

On 9 July 2021 Southern Water Services Ltd (SWS) was fined £90 million, to be paid out of company operating profits, in what was the largest fine ever imposed on a water company.

Environmental Law Quarterly Update - Q2 2021

This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period April 2021 - June 2021. 

R v Wood Treatment Limited - corporate manslaughter and the challenge of proving causation

The recent case of R v Wood Limited Treatment highlights the problems faced by prosecution authorities in proving causation for the purposes of establishing criminal liability for corporate manslaughter.

Met Police appetite for Account Freezing Orders undimmed by pandemic

Account Freezing Orders (AFrOs) are a measure introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and have been available to a wide range of law enforcement agencies since February 2018.

FCA signals streamlining of its own processes and toughening up of the regulatory gateway

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in its annual business plan published today, sets out its areas of focus for the year ahead.  It is, as ever, essential reading for all those in the regulated sector. 

The FCA proposes new listing guidance for cannabis-related businesses – a positive step for investors concerned about the Proceeds of Crime Act

In September 2020 the FCA published a statement regarding the listing of cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) in the UK. Since then several CRBs have been admitted to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and appetite for investments in the medicinal cannabis industry continues to grow.

Being accused of sexual misconduct when you are a child

As a criminal defence solicitor specialising in defending allegations of sexual misconduct and representing children, the perfect storm that has erupted since the launch of Everyone’s Invited has made me privy to some of the saddest and most distraught children I have ever advised.

Regressive approaches to sentencing will not help children or society

The head of the Youth Justice Board has rightly criticised the Government’s plans to raise child custodial sentences. At a time when England and Wales falls behind most European countries in protecting children with the lowest age of criminal responsibility (10), it is inexplicable that the Government is taking a further regressive step by seeking to increase the length of time that children must spend in prison.

AML and the Art Market: HMRC publishes its first risk assessment

Many art dealers, galleries and auction houses are now subject to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime and are defined as art market participants (AMPs) - see our related blog The compulsory embrace of the art market by the UK's Anti-Money Laundering regime. On 28 June HMRC published its first assessment of the key areas that AMPs should consider when conducting their own assessments of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing to which their business is subject.

COVID-19 Fraud: HMRC ramps up its investigations activity

In March 2021 the Chancellor announced the establishment of a taskforce to investigate those who may have fraudulently made use of government schemes set up to protect individuals and businesses against the economic impact of COVID-19 – such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) (widely referred to as the Furlough scheme), the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ Scheme.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility