John Francis Conlon

I will ask French J to give the first judgment.

MR JUSTICE FRENCH: The Applicant, John Francis Conlon, seeks the following relief. First, a writ of habeas corpus; secondly, an Order for judicial review of a committal Order made on 5th December 1994 by the City of London Magistrates' Court. The court ordered, in effect, that the Applicant be returned to the Republic of Ireland. The third matter which the Applicant seeks is an Order restraining the Governor of Brixton Prison from deporting the Applicant from the United Kingdom to Ireland, pending the making of an application for leave to apply for judicial review.

The background facts are shortly as follows. In September of 1992 the Applicant was arrested in Dublin in respect of a serious drugs offence. He was admitted to bail which was conditional upon his appearing before a District Court in Dublin. He did not appear before the court as required, and in due course he was, on 2nd December 1994, arrested at the Four Seasons Hotel, Park Lane, London.

On 5th December the City of London Magistrates' Court ordered, in effect, his return to the Republic of Ireland after the lapse of 15 days, being the period within which the Applicant might seek a writ of habeas corpus to free him from his confinement in Brixton Prison, hence the hearing before us seeking the relief stated.

The grant of such relief is opposed on behalf of the Respondent. The proceedings are defective in two respects. First of all, they are not brought in the appropriate form and there is no affidavit by the Applicant nor any explanation why there is no such affidavit. These defects could, if appropriate, be cured. There are, however, two more fundamental objections to granting the relief which the Applicant seeks. He seeks to contend that no Order for extradition should be made because his case falls within section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. Section 2(2) reads as follows:

"An order shall not be made under subsection (1) of this section if it appears to the court that the offence specified in the warrant does not correspond with any offence under the law of the part of the United Kingdom in which the court acts which is an indictable offence or is punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months ……"

None of those, I intervene to say, apply to the instant case. The subsection continues:

"….. nor shall such an order be made if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court-

(a) that the offence specified in the warrant is an offence of a political character, or an offence under military law which is not also an offence under the general criminal law, or an offence under an enactment relating to taxes, duties or exchange control;….." Again, I intervene to say that none of those circumstances is raised upon the face of the affidavit sworn on behalf of this Applicant.

Then paragraph (b) reads:

"that there are substantial grounds for believing that the person named or described in the warrant will, if taken to the Republic, be prosecuted or detained for another offence, being an offence of a political character or an offence under military law which is not also an offence under the general criminal law."

The Applicant contends that the offence for which his transfer to Ireland is sought is of a political character. Also, that his counsel was in error in failing to apply for an adjournment at the hearing before the City Magistrates so that arguments, which would enable him to rely on section 2(2) of the Act, could be presented.

The Respondents object to the application before us. The first ground is that fresh or additional evidence on matters relevant to section 2 of the Act is not admissible upon an application for habeas corpus. They object, secondly, that the Applicant cannot complain before this court that his counsel failed to present to the Magistrates arguments by way of...