BM v Republic of Ireland (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lane |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 648 (Admin) |
| Date | 18 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1604/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)
THE HON. Mr Justice Lane
Case No: CO/1604/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms F Iveson for the Appellant
Mr B Joyes for the Respondent
Determined without a hearing
ADDENDUM JUDGMENT
On 30 January 2020, I gave an extempore judgment, allowing the appellant's appeal against the decision of the District Judge that the appellant should be extradited to Ireland, pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003. I ordered the appellant's discharge.
At the commencement of the hearing, I granted the application made by Ms Iveson, on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant's name, and that of her family members should be anonymised. Mr Joyes, for the respondent, did not object to the application. There was no objection by the press, no member of whom appeared to have been present at the hearing.
On 21 February 2020, the Divisional Court (Irwin LJ and Lewis J) handed down judgment in John Short and the Falkland Islands [2020] [EWHC 439] (Admin) (“ Short No. 2”). The Divisional Court held that:-
“4. …. it would only be in exceptional circumstances that reporting restrictions should be imposed preventing the identification of a person accused of crimes: see In re Press Association [2013] 1 WLR 1979. We take a similar approach in relation to extradition proceedings. The policy restrictions which determine that criminal defendants should be identified save in very exceptional circumstances must be taken to apply with equal force to those sought for extradition to face criminal charges. We would not continue the order imposing reporting restrictions on the identity of the Appellant.
5. In relation to the Appellant's wife and child, they have been anonymised in the judgment and their identities were not referred to during the hearing of the appeal. We recognise that the Appellant may now be identified, and it may be difficult in practical terms to prevent any identification of the wife. We have not seen any material which would justify the continuation of reporting restrictions in relation to the identity of the Appellant's wife. We would not continue the order imposing reporting restrictions in relation to her. In relation to the Appellant's children, we recognise that they are young and that reference has been made to a genetic medical condition that they have relating to their eyesight. Both the appellant and the respondent support continuing the anonymity order in relation to the children. However, the material referred to in the judgment was relevant to the question of whether extradition would be a breach of Article 8 ECHR and is the kind of material routinely referred to in extradition cases where no reporting restrictions are imposed. On balance, we would not continue the order imposing reporting restrictions on the identity of the children. We would, however, invite any member of the press to consider whether reporting of the names of the children is necessary or in the public interest.”
In the light of Short No. 2, I requested representations from the parties on whether the appellant should be anonymised in the judgment, as published. I have received written submissions from Ms Iveson and Mr Joyes, for which I am grateful.
Ms Iveson points to features of the present case, not present in Short No. 2 (or the substantive judgment [2020] EWHC 438 (Admin)). In the present case, the position of T, the appellant's daughter, is of central significance. T suffers from merosin – negative congenital muscular dystrophy. As the main judgment makes plain, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DF v Amtsgericht Nürnberg, Germany
...by not publishing them in this judgment. 6 Mr Stansfeld drew the court's attention to the judgment of Lane J in BM v Ireland [2020] EWHC 648 (Admin), in which Lane J made an order for the identity of the appellant and his children, T and M, to be withheld from publication in the judgment. ......
-
KN v Sokolov District Court, Czech Republic
...said at the outset that Mr Smith applied at the hearing for an anonymity order. I am conscious that, as Lane J said in BM v Ireland [2020] EWHC 648 (Admin) [2020] 4 WLR 70 at paragraph 13: “As a general matter, a very good case indeed will need to be made, in order for a person who has … ......