By: Mark Tottenham BL, on May 9th, 2012

Attorney General v. Garland 2012 [IEHC] 90 (High Court, Edwards J, 27 January 2012)

High Court refuses request for extradition to the United States for alleged conspiracy to deliver counterfeit banknotes, on the grounds that the alleged offence was regarded under Irish law as having been committed in the state.

Extradition - alleged conspiracy to commit counterfeit acts - legal provisions for extradition between Ireland and USA - Part II of the Extradition Act 1965 - Treaty on Extradition, 13 July 1983 - Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union, 25th of June 2003 - ss 9, 15, 1965 Act - request for extradition - allegation of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit banknotes - extensive international investigation - whether extradition prohibited because alleged offence committed in Ireland - whether alleged offence would be regarded under Irish law as having been committed in Ireland - whether prosecutable in Ireland - distinction between substantial offence and inchoate offence - whether other grounds of objection moot.

Quotation from judgment (courtesy of the Courts Service of Ireland):

“In the Court's view, the case against the respondent alleges sufficient acts of actual conspiracy, and overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, within the territory of Ireland, and harmful to the interests of this country and its people, to justify the conclusion, which the Court has arrived at, that the offence for which extradition is requested would be regarded under the law of the State as having been committed in Ireland.”

Full Text on Court Services Website>

Key Cases Cited

Attorney General v. X [1992] 1 I.R. 1
Harris v Wren [1984] I.L.R.M. 120
R. v. Manning [1999] Q.B. 980
Director of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55
Proctor, Mann on the Legal Aspect of Money (Oxford University Press, 6th ed., 2000, chap. 20)
R. v. Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No. 4) [2004] 1 Q.B. 418
Hanlon v. Fleming [1981] I.R. 489
Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America [1991] 1 AC 225
Board of Trade v. Owen [1957] 1 A.C. 602
R. v. Doot [1973] A.C. 807
State (Furlong) v. Kelly [1971] I.R. 132,
R v Treacy [1971] AC 537
R v Harden [1963] 1 QB 8
US. v. Arjona (1887) 120 US 479
R. (Purdy) v. D.P.P. [2010] 1 A.C. 345
Stanton v O'Toole [2000] I.E.S.C. 36
R. v. Smith (No. 1) [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 1
Attorney General v Yeung Sun-shun [1987] HKLR 987
Charleton, Bolger and McDermott, Criminal Law, (Butterworths, 1999), 4.56
Macleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1891] A.C. 455
Wilson v. Sheehan [1979] I.R. 423
Professor Glanville Williams, "Venue and the Ambit of Criminal Law" (1