Title:Rimsa -v- Governor of Cloverhill Prison. High Court Judgment was given by Mr Justice Hedigan on January 11th 2008.
Judgment
A Latvian national was legally detained pending his handing over to the Latvian authorities on foot of a European Arrest Warrant even though he was detained beyond the 10 days specified in the Act.
Background
The applicant, Sergejs Rimsa, was arrested on October 22nd 2007 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued in Riga on September 6th. He was remanded in custody until an order for his extradition was made in the High Court by Mr Justice Peart on December 13th, 2007. He was further remanded in custody in Cloverhill Prison pending his surrender to the Latvian authorities.
This was stayed for 15 days to permit him to appeal, but he did not do so. The order then took effect on December 28th. Section 16 (5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 provides that the person concerned shall be surrendered to the issuing State not later than 10 days after the order takes effect, or such date thereafter as shall be agreed between the Central Authority of the State and the issuing State (in this instance, Latvia).
Following the exchange of faxes and e-mails, it became clear that Rimsa could not be picked up until January 9th, two days later than the 10 days provided for.
Rimsa claimed that his detention after January 7th was not necessary and was not covered by the committal warrant. He said his surrender could have been, and should have been, carried out before January 7th. He said there was no proof that the Latvian authorities had agreed to the extension of time.
He also claimed Section 16 did not provide for detention until another later agreed date, so he should have been released; and that the Framework Decision had direct effect in these circumstances (of agreement between states on a new date), which meant that the judicial authorities, not administrative personnel, should have agreed on it.
Decision
The Latvian authorities had claimed that they could not obtain airline tickets for the officer to go to collect him, and for their return to Riga, before January 7th. Mr Justice Hedigan said that it seemed reasonable to accept that during the New Year holiday season seat availability might be limited.
He said that it was clear from the documents that the Latvian State did agree to the new date. He found that there was no lacuna in the Act that would allow a person be released between an original agreed date for transfer and later agreed date; and that the directive did not have direct effect.
Accordingly he found that the challenge to the detention failed, and that Rimsa was in lawful custody.
The full judgment is available on www.courts.ie