Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court, on appeal from the Court of Appeal in an application by the Prosecutor General of Lithuania for surrender of a suspect for prosecution for armed robbery under a European arrest warrant (EAW), makes a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union as to: (a) what criteria should be adopted by national courts in determining whether a public prosecutor in a destination country was a 'judicial authority' for the purposes of the EAW legislation; and (b) whether the Prosecutor General of Lithuania was a 'judicial authority'.
Finlay Geoghegan J (nem diss): Referral of decision to Court of Justice of the European Union - European arrest warrant (EAW) - surrender of suspect to Lithuania - allegation of armed robbery - whether Prosecutor General in Lithuania was a 'judicial authority' within meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision and hence the Irish European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 - role of Prosecutor General - further information sought from office of Prosecutor General - conclusion by High Court and Court of Appeal that Prosecutor General was a judicial authority - whether evidence displaced the presumption that the Prosecutor General was a judicial authority - status of prosecutor independent of judiciary - whether a public prosecutor could be a judicial authority under EU law - criteria to be considered by national court in determining whether a public prosecutor was a judicial authority.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now