A Dublin man has lost his High Court bid to prevent his extradition to Hungary in connection with a road traffic incident that caused the deaths of two children outside Budapest more than 10 years ago.
Ciaran Tobin (46), Offington Drive, Sutton, was in court today and remains on bail pending the making of formal orders in the extradition proceedings. He intends to appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court, the court heard.
Mr Justice Michael Peart, while dismissing Mr Tobin’s case, said at least one point of law of exceptional public importance arose in the case that should be determined by the Supreme Court.
Maurice Collins SC, for the Attorney General, said his side would not object to the High Court certifying points of law for determination. The exact points of law will be decided later. The case has been listed again for March 9th.
In the European Arrest Warrant, it is claimed a car driven by Mr Tobin - who was working in Hungary for Irish Life - mounted a footpath in a built up area near the Hungarian capital on April 9th 2000 as a result of which Marton Zoltai (5) and Petra Zoltai (2), respectively standing on the footpath and sitting in a pram, were both killed.
It is claimed Mr Tobin’s wife and two Irish friends were also in the car at the time. The following day, all four attended a police station and made a statement with the assistance of a Hungarian lawyer. Mr Tobin was later sentenced to three years in prison - which appeared to have been reduced to 18 months on appeal.
Extradition proceedings brought against him in 2007 were dismissed after the High Court found, under the relevant provision of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, he had not “fled” Hungary after the incident.
The High Court accepted Mr Tobin’s arguments he and his family left Hungary on November 30th, 2000, following the completion of his work there and he never “fled” Hungary. The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2008.
The 2003 Act was later amended so as to remove, in relation to European Arrest Warrants (EAW) issued after August 2009, the requirement that the Minister for Justice must satisfy the High Court a person has “fled” from the issuing state before serving a sentence.
Those amendments were signed into law in July 2010, and in September 2010 the Hungarian authorities issued a new EAW, in exactly the same terms as the first warrant, seeking Mr Tobin’s surrender.
In his judgment rejecting Mr Tobin’s appeal against the second extradition attempt, Mr Justice Peart ruled there was no bar to an issuing State issuing a fresh warrant for surrender after a previous application failed.
He was satisfied the issue now was not whether Mr Tobin “fled” Hungary but whether he is a person whom the court has jurisdiction to surrender. That jurisdiction flowed from the relevant legislation, as amended.
Despite the fact Mr Tobin was vexed by this second application, other persons had also faced second applications and the fact of a second application did not amount to abuse of process.
He also rejected arguments the amendment of the 2003 Act enabling the second warrant be issued constituted an interference by the Oireachtas with an order of the court.
The judge also dismissed arguments relating to apparent confusion about the sentence to be served if extradited. The sentence imposed was three years, even if there was an opportunity of release after 18 months, and the relevant provision of the EAW Act was sufficiently complied with, he said.
The judge rejected other arguments that extradition represented an unwarranted and disproportionate interference with Mr Tobin’s family rights udner the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Tobin had argued he and his family had moved to Sutton to get a fresh start following the courts dismissal of the first application for his surrender and he is closely involved in his children’s lives.
There was nothing exceptional in Mr Tobin’s family circumstances such as to prohibit his surrender, the judge ruled.
He said Mr Tobin was in an unfortunate position due to certain factors, including that the State has not given effect here to an optional ground of the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons which would mean an undertaking from the State that Mr Tobin could serve his sentence here could be an optional ground for refusing to order his surrender.
However, the judge said, he could not agree that unfortunate position amounted to discrimination. He was also not satisfied Mr Tobin had produced any evidence to show his right to life or bodily integrity would be at risk if extradited on grounds including adverse publicity in Hungary.
