The Supreme Court has halted, on health grounds, the extradition from here to Britain of a former RUC officer on charges alleging possession of IR£650,000 worth of heroin with intent to supply.
The three-judge court yesterday found there were "exceptional circumstances" as required under Section 50 of the Extradition Act for the making of an order for the release of Mr Matthew Armstrong.
Matthew Henry Armstrong (62), a native of Tempo, Co Fermanagh, describes himself as a businessman and has an address in Dublin. Mr Armstrong, who was married three times, has lived in the Republic for more than 10 years and has carried an Irish passport for more than 20 years.
Last year the High Court dismissed a challenge to a Dublin District Court order of September 24th, 1998, for his extradition to Britain. Mr Armstrong was on bail pending the outcome of his appeal against that decision. Mr Armstrong was arrested in Bray, Co Wicklow, on May 12th, 1995, under a warrant issued on January 19th that year alleging possession of some IR£650,000 worth of heroin in London on June 29th, 1992.
The High Court heard he was recruited into the RUC when he was 18 and served in Crossmaglen and Portadown for approximately 6½ years. He left in 1967/68.
He said he later became a motor dealer and operated a number of public houses. Subsequently he went to Spain and began buying and selling pubs as well as letting out apartments.
According to British police in an affidavit submitted to the High Court, Armstrong's alleged role in the commission of the drug offence was to meet the buyer and negotiate the terms of the transaction, and afterwards to receive the purchase money. Mr Armstrong denied that and claimed he was at the time assisting two law enforcement agencies with the knowledge of a third - the RUC.
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr Armstrong argued that new evidence, relating to his health, constituted exceptional circumstances under Section 50 of the Extradition Act justifying the making of an order for his release. The State did not contest the new evidence.
In her judgment, Ms Justice Denham said the new evidence arose from the fact that Mr Armstrong suffered a stroke in February 2003 which resulted in right-sided paralysis and speech and language difficulties. A consultant had expressed the opinion that he was not medically fit to stand trial. Ms Justice Denham said Mr Armstrong was now in a wholly different position to that in which he was when his appeal was before the High Court.
She was satisfied that evidence could be received by the court. It was also important that Mr Armstrong's extradition was being sought for a trial. He was pleading innocence of that charge and it was apparent his defence would rest on pleading a complicated situation, including a "police sting", so a complex trial might be envisaged.
The judge said she was satisfied that Mr Armstrong, as a consequence of a stroke, has mental impairment and physical difficulties. Those factors, together with the fact his extradition was being sought for a complex trial, created a situation where it would be unjust and oppressive to deliver him up.
In a separate judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said he was satisfied, if such a finding was necessary, that the new evidence relating to Mr Armstrong's health constituted "exceptional circumstances". In any event, he was satisfied, having regard to that evidence, it would "clearly be oppressive" to deliver up Mr Armstrong.
