Journalist Ian Bailey has secured leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order for his extradition to France over the killing of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Co Cork.
Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled today an issue arose in the case which was of such exceptional public importance it should be determined by the Supreme Court.
That issue is whether the surrender of a person is prohibited by Section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 where the offence for which surrender is sought is committed here and where the victim is a national of the State requesting extradition which seeks to prosecute the offence under its own laws when the DPP here has decided not to prosecute the person.
In those circumstances, the judge placed a stay on the order for extradition pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal and remanded Mr Bailey on bail to Friday. He will have to enter a fresh bail bond after which he will remain on bail pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.
The judge also directed that a notice of appeal should be lodged by 4pm on Friday. He also awarded costs of the High Court proceedings to the State against Mr Bailey but put a stay on that costs order pending the appeal.
Mr Bailey was in court today for the judge's decision.
Under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), an appeal against an extradition order may only be brought if the High Court certifies the case raises points of law of such exceptional importance the public interest requires those points should be determined by the Supreme Court.
Mr Bailey's lawyers argued the case raised three such points while the State argued no point of law arose that justified certification.
Mr Bailey (53), The Prairie, Schull, Co Cork, has always denied any involvement in the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier (39), a French film maker whose body was discovered near her holiday home in Schull on December 23rd, 1996. He was arrested by investigating gardaí and the DPP found no basis to charge him.
In his High Court ruling last February permitting extradition, Mr Justice Peart found the warrant issued by the French authorities clearly stated its purpose was to “prosecute" Mr Bailey, did not state the purpose was "investigation" and indicated the French view was there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Bailey.
The French procedure requires Mr Bailey to be brought before an examining magistrate and given the opportunity to respond to the evidence before any decision is made whether to put him on trial or not.
