Surrender for prosecution for murder refused where Supreme Court previously refused surrender

European arrest warrant – French authorities seeking the surrender of respondent to face trail for alleged murder -  Supreme Court has previously ruled that there is a jurisdictional bar to the surrender of the respondent to France in respect of the alleged offence – whether surrender is prohibited by section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 – no material change since the Supreme Court judgment – argued that it was res judicata and/or the Minister was estopped from seeking the respondent’s surrender – minister argued that res judicata did not apply – fresh warrant had been issued - , if an issue of law or fact has been conclusively determined in the earlier proceedings, and there has been no material change in the factual or legal circumstances presented to the court considering issues arising from the second warrant the court is satisfied that on issues integral to the determination in the earlier proceedings, that determination remains binding on the parties to the first decision - doctrine of res judicata cannot apply by definition to issues arising in relation to a second or subsequent request for rendition - Minister has taken no steps since the date of the Supreme Court decision refusing the surrender to effect any amendment to the statutory provision relevant to this case – estoppel and prior judgments - finality of proceedings to the certainty of the administration of law - fact that extradition litigation takes the form of an inquiry rather than an adversarial contest makes no difference to this conclusion - an estoppel can arise where the legal issue remains identical, and where there is also no relevant difference in the applicable factual circumstances - present application involves precisely the same issue of extra-territoriality previously settled by the Supreme Court - Minister is estopped from re-litigating the interpretation of section 44 – Minister seeks a reference to the CJEU – interpretation of framework decision and section 44 - suggested that the earlier interpretation of section 44 could be overturned, if a preliminary reference to the CJEU resulted in an opinion from the CJEU on the interpretation of Article 4.7(b) of the Framework Decision suggesting that the Supreme Court was in error in the application of the principle of conforming interpretation in the previous decision - Article 267 of the TFEU - question of whether the Supreme Court judgment has a conclusive effect under any of the previously mentioned doctrines is a matter of national law, which I am satisfied would not be susceptible to change by any advice that might subsequently be received consequent upon a reference to the CJEU – reference not required - decision to make a preliminary reference is a matter of discretion as opposed to compulsion, given that the High Court is not a final court for the purposes of Art. 267 – whether references pre-2014 in areas concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are binding in this jurisdiction - settled interpretation of an applicable statutory provision of domestic law, not a possible interpretation of an EU framework provision that is devoid of direct effect - no question of interpretation or validity of an EU instrument giving rise to the necessity for a reference for a preliminary ruling in order give judgment in the case – respondent argued that his surrender should be refused as the proceedings were an abuse of process – importance of finality of court proceedings – Minister argues that there was no oppressive conduct – presumptions in favour of EAW - Minister had no power to decline to accept or to seek endorsement of a warrant - abuse of process jurisdiction can be invoked in extradition proceedings - binding and conclusive decision of the Supreme Court – five year delay since Supreme Court judgment - no engagement by the Minister or the requesting authorities with the unusual fact in an extradition case that the allegations the subject matter of the request and the alleged involvement of the requested person have been comprehensively and repeatedly investigated and considered by the police force and prosecuting authorities of the requested State – even if Supreme Court was wrong no absolute or complete retroactive effect of judicial decisions - underlying statutory position has not been amended - Minister is now bound by the consequences of the tactical decisions made in previous litigation - proceedings amount to no more than a belated and direct challenge to the Supreme Court decision - stare decisis – High Court bound by precedent – bound by the Supreme Court decision on section 44 – separation of powers - no quarrel with the clear exercise of the prerogative of the Minister to make such a suggestion in the course of s.16 inquiry – Court did not agree with the substance of the submissions of the Minister during the s.16 hearing - inding of abuse of process does not express or imply that the Minister acted with mala fides or bad faith - Minister was not obliged to actively canvass the forcible rendition of the respondent – surrender refused.