A seriously ill Irishman wanted by the English authorities in connection with an indecent assault charge was freed by order of the High Court yesterday.
The man had pleaded guilty to the charge but absconded before sentence. When he returned to Ireland, he claimed he was not guilty of the offence and pleaded guilty only on the advice of lawyers.
Given the original guilty plea, Mr Justice McCracken said, he did not think it would be unjust to deliver the man up. However, given the seven-year delay in the case, the exceptional circumstance of the man's serious illness and other circumstances including the fact he had lived openly in Dublin since he absconded, the judge said it would be "oppressive and invidious" to extradite him and directed his release.
Outlining the background of the case, the judge said the man had pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault when he appeared before an English court in 1992 and was remanded on bail for sentence.
He failed to turn up for the sentence hearing, having previously returned to Ireland. He claimed he was not guilty of the offence and had pleaded guilty only on the advice of his lawyers.
He was arrested by gardai in 1995 over allegations of another offence which were communicated to gardai by police in England. His extradition was ordered by the District Court and he applied to the High Court for an order for his release.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice McCracken said Section 50 of the Extradition Act provided the High Court could direct the release of a person facing extradition if the court found, by reason of lapse of time since the commission of the offence and "other exceptional circumstances" it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be "unjust, oppressive or invidious" to deliver him up.
The relevant period of delay to be considered was that between the failure to appear in the court in England in late 1992 and the hearing of the Section 50 application in the High Court in February 1999.
The judge said he was satisfied that period of delay might be taken into consideration in conjunction with other factors.
There were two basic matters to be considered as exceptional circumstances in the case. The man had lived openly in Dublin since he absconded. He was also in the Social Welfare system at an early stage. The victim of the alleged assault was the daughter of his estranged wife and the evidence was that she would have known his parents' address and would have made it available to the police.
The second exceptional circumstance was the deterioration in the man's health. He had suffered a severe form of illness and treatment with steroids had produced serious side-effects which had led to him suffering from another serious illness which developed about 1995. A further serious condition also developed.
The judge said the present circumstances with regard to the man's health could certainly be called exceptional.