Constitutional rights not at risk in ordering surrender to Northern Ireland

European arrest warrant - two European arrest warrants issued from two separate jurisdictions in the United Kingdom - whether s. 29 of the Act of 2003, as amended, requires the High Court to exercise a choice between these EAWs with regard to the performance of statutory functions – prosecutorial warrants – warrant for prosecution in Northern Ireland for fraud – warrant for prosecution in England in relation to two offences of conspiracy to defraud – procedural history – initially indicated that he would consent to surrender to the English warrant – submitted that consent to surrender under s. 15 had to be dealt with by the High Court immediately – adjourned – delays – on adjourned date sought to rely on s. 29 of the Act of 2003, as amended – no notice given to the Minister – written submissions contained a point not contained in the points of objection - a respondent has a duty to file points of objection where he or she intends to raise an objection to surrender - duty to avoid unnecessary expense or waste of the court’s time - Court concluded that s. 15 cannot be understood as requiring an immediate surrender order by the Court - inevitable that the High Court may not be in a position to deal with a matter on a given day or indeed to give a judgment on a given day - Section 29 of the Act of 2003 – statutory interpretation – U.K. authorities stated that if surrender is ordered on both EAWs, “he is to be surrendered to Northern Ireland” - equivalent of being surrendered to this jurisdiction to face a number of charges in different courts - Court agrees with the submission that neither the Act nor the 2002 Framework Decision operate so that the executing judicial authority decides the order in which different EAWs have to be dealt with in the issuing state - will in effect be surrendered on both EAWs – no necessity to exercise a choice over which EAW he must be surrendered - no substantial grounds for believing that his ECHR or constitutional rights are at risk upon surrender – surrender not a disproportionate interference with his family rights.