LAWYERS FOR Ian Bailey have until next Tuesday to indicate whether they intend to appeal a decision by the High Court to extradite Mr Bailey to France in connection with the murder of French film producer Sophie Toscan du Plantier (39) in west Cork more than 14 years ago.
Mr Bailey’s solicitor Frank Buttimer refused to be drawn yesterday on whether his client would appeal the High Court decision.
He said he and Mr Bailey needed time to study the detailed judgment handed down by Mr Justice Michael Peart ordering the surrender of his client to the French authorities.
Mr Buttimer has previously indicated that, in the event of the High Court agreeing to the European arrest warrant application issued by investigating French magistrate Patrick Gachon, his client would appeal to the Supreme Court.
In his 54-page judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Peart said the French warrant clearly stated the intention was to prosecute Mr Bailey, not just to investigate him. He rejected arguments Mr Bailey faced a real risk of an unfair trial in France.
The ruling was welcomed by Ms Toscan du Plantier’s family in France. Her mother, Marguerite Bouniol, said it was “a great victory in our struggle for justice”, while her uncle, Jean Pierre Gazeau, said the family had greeted the decision with a mixture of relief and elation.
Ms Toscan du Plantier’s badly beaten body was found near her holiday home in Toormore, near Schull, on December 23rd, 1996. Mr Bailey was twice arrested and questioned about the killing, but was released without charge on each occasion. He has always protested his innocence.
Last April, Judge Gachon issued a European arrest warrant for Mr Bailey in connection with the killing. In December, lawyers for both the Minister for Justice and Mr Bailey made submissions on the case before Mr Justice Peart.
French law requires Mr Bailey be brought before an examining magistrate and given the chance to respond to the evidence before a decision is made on whether to try him.
Mr Justice Peart said the fact a decision may be made not to try him at the end of this procedure did not entitle Mr Bailey to an order preventing his surrender.
Lawyers for Mr Bailey had argued the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided not to prosecute him after several reviews of the case. It would be wrong to send him to France on foot of an application based solely on an Irish investigation file when the Irish authorities had directed there be no prosecution on foot of the same file, they said.
Mr Justice Peart said any comfort Mr Bailey may have derived from the DPP not having prosecuted him to date did not exclude the possibility of the DPP changing his mind if new evidence arose, nor did it confer any right to the effect he could not or would not be surrendered.