THE SUPREME Court has ordered the extradition to Sweden of a man sought in connection with armed robbery and arson offences there. Thomas Olsson is the first person to be extradited to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant Act system.
Mr Olsson was arrested here in July 2008 under a European Arrest Warrant issued in 2006 in relation to four offences of organised or armed robbery and arson in Sweden in October 2005.
After the High Court in 2008 dismissed all Mr Olsson’s objections to his proposed surrender, he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell, giving the judgment of the five-judge court, dismissed arguments that the provision of legal assistance under the Attorney General’s scheme for persons opposing extradition fell short of what was required for a person whose return was sought under a European warrant.
The 2002 European Council framework decision on arrest and surrender procedures imposed no obligation on a State from which surrender was sought to provide legal aid but merely provided for a right of representation in accordance with the national law of that state, he said. That right “and more, had been unequivocally vindicated” here.
Mr Justice O’Donnell also rejected arguments that the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 imposed a more extensive obligation related to provision of legal assistance.
While Mr Olsson claimed the Attorney General’s scheme did not amount to the provision of legal aid “as of right”, the judge said there were significant difficulties with this argument, including the fact Mr Olsson was repeatedly invited to apply for the Attorney General’s scheme and assured it would be made available to him.
Mr Olsson was also represented by experienced and able lawyers and received legal representation involving senior and junior counsel and a solicitor and, if necessary, that being paid by the State, the judge said. There was full compliance with the 2003 Act which did not require an unqualified right to legal aid.
An unchallenged statement by the Chief State Solicitor’s office that those who were the subject of a European warrant, who secured a court recommendation for payment under the Attorney General’s legal aid scheme, were not dependent on the Attorney General’s goodwill for the payment of fees and the provisions of the scheme itself, also amply satisfied any requirement for representation implicit in the Act.
On the second argument in the appeal, that no “decision” had been made by the Swedish authorities to prosecute Mr Olsson, Mr Justice O’Donnell said the High Court had correctly concluded there was a clear intention by the Swedish authorities to bring proceedings against Mr Olsson.
The European warrant stated the arrest and surrender of Mr Olsson was being sought “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution”.
While the evidence made clear that Mr Olsson would not be prosecuted until Swedish prosecutors had interviewed him, and while the result of that interview might lead to no prosecution, the Act did not intend words such as “charge” or “prosecution” should only be understood as meaning a charge or prosecution as in the Irish criminal justice system.
The Act established a procedure for the reciprocal execution of warrants within legal systems, almost all of which differed in some ways.
The framework decision also provided that a European warrant was a judicial decision issued by a member state with a view to the arrest and surrender to another member state of a person “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution”.
The court also awarded costs against Mr Olsson but allowed his lawyers a week to consider if they wished to dispute the costs issue.
