Construction firm director faces extradition to the UK

A construction company director faces extradition next week to the UK over his role in a £5 million (about €5.8 million) tax fraud after losing a Supreme Court appeal.

The UK authorities sought the extradition of Thomas Joseph O’Connor (49), with an address at Cloughbeirne, The Walk, Roscommon, to serve a 4½-year prison sentence imposed for defrauding the British revenue.

He was sentenced in January 2007 at Blackfriars Crown Court, London, in his absence.

After being convicted following a six-week trial, O’Connor, who was on bail, did not attend court for the sentencing hearing and now also faces further charges in England of absconding.

He had returned to Ireland but was arrested on an extradition warrant in 2009.

After the High Court ordered his extradition, he appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in October 2015.

The main ground of his appeal was his constitutional right to equality was violated due to the absence of a statutory free legal aid scheme in extradition cases.

He then got leave to bring a further appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of exceptional public importance and his extradition was stayed on that basis.

On Thursday, a seven-judge Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.

Dr Michael Forde SC, for O’Connor, asked for a short stay because his client’s brother was seriously ill.

The court agreed to grant a stay on extradition for a week on condition O’Connor sign on daily at his local Garda station and attend the High Court next Thursday for his surrender.

Legal representation

In his judgment on behalf of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said the underlying right which O’Connor sought to be vindicated was whether there was a breach of fair procedures because legal representation for such cases is only available under “an administrative scheme of some antiquity with some particular procedures”.

That scheme is the 2013 Legal Aid Custody Issue Scheme, formerly known as the Attorney General Scheme.

Mr Justice O’Donnell said there “plainly” was no breach of fair procedures.

It is also difficult to see how there could be a breach of entitlement to equality, he said.

Once legal representation was made available at a cost to the State, the fact that representation is made available through a different route than in other cases does not breach the Constitution, he said.

The judge also refused to ask the European Court of Justice to decide legal issues as to whether the appellant’s rights had been breached under a 2002 EU Framework Decision relating to legal aid in extradition cases.

Legal aid is available in European Arrest Warrant cases and a question of permissibility under the Framework Directive would only arise if the State sought to withdraw from the existing scheme, he said.

Whatever historical justification there may be for the development of two separate legal aid schemes (the Criminal Legal Aid Act of 1962 and the 2013 Legal Aid Custody Scheme), it is open to doubt whether the distinction between them serves any useful purpose, he said.

That distinction may indeed lead to misunderstanding or worse and there “may be merit in placing the entire area on a comprehensive statutory footing”, he said.

This has no impact on the present case and the appeal must be dismissed, he said.