R v Woolwich Crown Court and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAY,MR JUSTICE ASTILL |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWCA Civ J0112-8 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | CO/3950/97 |
| Date | 12 January 1998 |
[1998] EWCA Civ J0112-8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice May
and
Mr Justice Astill
CO/3950/97
CO/4271/97
In the Matter of Gilligan
MISS C MONTGOMERY QC and MR J LEWIS (Instructed by Stokoe Partnership, Leytonstone, London E11 3DH) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR N PETERS QC and MR S COLLEARY (Instructed by CPS, Ludgate Hill, London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
( )
Monday, 12th January 1998
Introduction
John Gilligan, the Applicant, was arrested on 6.10.96 at Heathrow Airport attempting to board a flight for Amsterdam. He had on him approximately £330,000 in cash, mostly in Irish and Northern Irish currency. He was charged by H.M. Customs and Excise with an offence contrary to section 49(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1994 and remanded in custody. Further offences were charged before his committal proceedings, which were contested and took place during January and February 1997. On 20.2.97, he was committed on 3 charges to Woolwich Crown Court. He took judicial review proceedings of the decision to commit. These proceedings were heard on 14 and 16.5.97 and two of the three charges were quashed, leaving a third charge of an offence contrary to section 50(1)(a) of the 1994 Act. Mr Gilligan appeared on a number of occasions after his committal for pre-trial directions. The trial was fixed for 8.9.97. On 3.7.97, Kay J. granted leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment covering the original charges and in addition a charge of conspiracy to conceal or carry drugs on ships to the Republic of Ireland between 1.1.94 and 30.10.96. The voluntary Bill was preferred on 11.7.97.
On 29.8.97, the Special Criminal Court in Dublin granted 18 arrest warrants against Mr Gilligan. These charge him with:
(a) murder of Veronica Guerin;
(b) 5 charges of unlawfully importing cannabis resin into Ireland;
(c) 6 charges of possessing cannabis resin for the purpose of selling or supplying.
(d) 2 charges of possession or control of firearms with intent to endanger life.
(e) 2 charges of possession or control of ammunition with intent to endanger life.
(f) 1 charge of unlawful possession or control of firearms
(g) 1 charge of unlawful possession or control of ammunition.
These arrest warrants were endorsed on 3.9.97. Proceedings were then taken for the warrants to be executed in England for Mr Gilligan's return to Ireland.
On 8.9.97, the prosecution in the English proceedings before the Woolwich Crown Court made a successful application for an adjournment of the English trial. The court accepted the prosecution's contention that the application to return Mr Gilligan to Ireland should take precedence over the English trial. The prosecution made clear that, if Mr Gilligan were returned to Ireland and tried there, there would be no English trial whatever the outcome in Ireland.
Also on 8.9.97, Mr Gilligan appeared at Belmarsh Magistrates Court before a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Riddle. These were proceedings under section 2 of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. The hearing was preliminary. Mr Gilligan was identified by D.I. O'Connell from the Garda Síochána. Miss Montgomery Q.C., who appeared for Mr Gilligan, asked for and obtained an adjournment. The court was told that there would be a preliminary issue to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to consider allegations of abuse of process. In his affidavit before this court, Mr Gilligan states that he wanted to contend that he had been improperly arrested for domestic proceedings in the United Kingdom in an effort to hold him in custody while the extradition request from Ireland could be perfected and that the extradition request was made in bad faith and was a manipulation of the court process.
On 24.9.97, Mr Gilligan, represented this time by Mr Lewis, appeared before a second Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Wallis. The magistrate heard legal argument and held that a submission of abuse of process could not be made upon proceedings under the 1965 Act. The available time was spent on this and the matter was again adjourned.
On 22.10.97, Mr Gilligan, again represented by Mr Lewis, appeared before a third Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Cooper. The Irish Government called evidence of Irish law from Mr Tom O'Connell, a practising member of the Irish Bar. Little or no notice of the intention to do this had been given to those representing Mr Gilligan. D.I. O'Connell was recalled and cross-examined. A further witness, D.S. O'Neill, was called to identify Mr Gilligan. Mr Lewis applied for an adjournment to consider the new evidence of Irish law and to apply for legal aid to instruct an Irish law expert. The Magistrate adjourned the hearing to 28.10.97, despite submissions that this was too short a period and that Mr Lewis would not then be available. Cross-examination of Mr Tom O'Connell was reserved.
On 28.10.97, Mr Gilligan, represented by Mr Knowles, again appeared before Mr Cooper. There was no application to cross-examine Mr Tom O'Connell and no application for a further adjournment. Mr Knowles made submissions that the offences specified in the Irish warrants were not shown to correspond with English offences (see below). Mr Cooper rejected these submissions and Mr Gilligan was ordered to be delivered up.
On 30.10.97, the prosecution in the English Crown Court proceedings successfully applied for an extension of the custody time limit on the ground that Mr Gilligan was applying for a writ of habeas corpus following his committal in the 1965 Act proceedings and that the outcome of that application was not known. The court extended the custody time limit to 2.1.98 and refused a defence application to fix an effective date for trial.
On 11.11.97, Mr Gilligan applied for a writ of habeas corpus to review the decision of the Woolwich Magistrates Court to order him to be delivered up.
On 3.12.97, Mr Gilligan applied for leave to move for judicial review of the decision of the Woolwich Crown Court to extend the custody time limit. Jowitt J. adjourned the application for leave to this court. We granted leave during the hearing to enable the substantive matter to be determined.
We heard submission on both matters on 18 and 19.12.97.
The habeas corpus application
Miss Montgomery on behalf of Mr Gilligan contends that:
(a) there was insufficient material before the Magistrate to enable him to conclude that the offences specified in the Irish warrants correspond with English offences;
(b) Mr Gilligan should have been allowed to contend that the proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process;
(c) it was unlawful for the proceedings to take place before three magistrates; and
(d) it was wrong or unfair for the prosecution to be allowed to call evidence of Irish law or for the defence to be given only 6 days to deal with it.
Section 1 of the 1965 Act provides for the endorsement by a justice of the peace in the United Kingdom of
"a warrant … issued by a judicial authority in the Republic of Ireland … for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of an offence against the laws of the Republic, being an indictable offence …".
Section 2 provides:
"(1) So soon as is practicable after a person is arrested …, he shall be brought before a magistrates' court and the court shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, order him to be delivered at some convenient point of departure from the United Kingdom into the custody of a member of the police force (Garda Síochána) of the Republic, and remand him until so delivered.
(2) 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 …; nor shall 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 …
(b) …
(c) …
(d) … [other exceptions]."
Section 2(2) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 added a subsection (e) to these exceptions.
For the purposes of the 1965 Act, section 1(2) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 provides for offences which are not to be regarded as offences of a political character. By section 1(1), the section applies to
"… any offence of which a person is accused or has been convicted outside the United Kingdom if the act constituting the offence, or the equivalent act, would, if it took place in any part of the United Kingdom … constitute one of the offences listed in Schedule 1 to this Act."
The Schedule lists a large number of English offences including murder and certain offences under the Firearms Act 1968.
Where a magistrates' court makes an order under section 2(1), section 3 provides a moratorium of 15 days during which the applicant may apply for a writ of habeas corpus. Such an application may be, as in this case, in the nature of an application for judicial review of the magistrate's decision.
Section 6A of the 1965 Act (as inserted by section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993) together with S.I. 1994/1952 provide that an order under section 2(1) of the 1965 Act may not be made if it is shown that no provision is made in the law of Ireland preventing the person delivered up...
To continue reading
Request your trial