Jonah Horne v United States of America (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NIQB 36 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 31 March 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NIQB 36
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11464
ICOS No:
Delivered: 31/03/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE
EXTRADITION ACT 2003
_________
BETWEEN:
JONAH HORNE
Appellant;
-and-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(No.2)
Respondent.
________
Before: McCloskey LJ and McFarland J
________
Representation
Appellant: Mr Frank O’Donoghue QC with Mr Sean Doherty of counsel,
instructed by Gillen & Co Solicitors
Respondent: Mr Tony McGleenan QC with Mr Stephen Ritchie of counsel,
instructed by the Crown Solicitor
___________
McCloskey LJ (giving the judgment of the court)
Preface
This is the ruling of the court determining the appellant’s application to have fresh
evidence admitted in these appellate extradition proceedings.
2
The Proceedings
[1] The Requesting State is the USA. Pursuant to a warrant dated 12 November
2016 issued by the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court the extradition of Jonah Horne
(“the appellant”) on the charge of second degree murder with a firearm is sought. It is
alleged that on 7 June 2016 in the context of a drugs dispute, the appellant shot and
mortally wounded Jacob Walsh (“the deceased”) when in the passenger seat of a
vehicle at Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
[2] The appellant’s resistance to his extradition is based on three grounds:
(i) While the maximum sentence in the State of Florida for second degree
murder with a firearm is life imprisonment, it is contended that there is
a real risk that if extradited the appellant will be charged with first
degree murder on the same alleged facts and subjected to the death
penalty if convicted, in contravention of his rights under Article 2 and
Article 3 ECHR.
(ii) Secondly, although it is accepted that the imposition of a sentence of
life imprisonment on an adult offender is not, in itself, prohibited by
any article of the Convention, it is submitted that the real possibility of
an irreducible life sentence is incompatible with his Article 3
Convention rights. For a life sentence to remain compatible with
Article 3, there must be both a prospect of release and a possibility of
review. It is submitted that no review mechanism exists.
(iii) Thirdly, it is submitted that the conditions in Florida prisons are such
that there is a real risk that he would be subjected to torture, inhuman
or degrading treatment if returned which would be incompatible with
his Article 3 Convention rights.
[3] In [4] – [11] following we gratefully adopt the narrative in the judgment of the
single judge, Colton J.
[4] The matter first came before Her Honour Judge Smyth (“the judge”) on
29 August 2018. In a detailed written judgment, she dealt with each of the issues
raised by the applicant. In relation to the first issue, she determined that in the
absence of an adequate assurance within 14 days that the applicant would not be
charged with first degree murder, or that, in the event of his conviction for that
offence, the death penalty would not be sought, the applicant would be discharged.
[5] In relation to the second objection, the judge concluded that the arrangements
within the Requesting State for clemency or commutation of a life sentence were not
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Jonah Horne and United States of America (No.3)
...Ross unreliable and unpersuasive. It is appropriate to rehearse [46] – [48] of our earlier judgment in this appeal (Horne v USA, No 2 [2021] NIQB 36): “[46] Standing back, having regard to all of the matters highlighted in paragraph [35]–[43]and giving effect to the principles rehearsed in ......