Nothing in legislation to prohibit surrender of man to France to serve sentence

European arrest warrant – French authorities seeking the surrender of man to serve three-year sentence imposed on foot of conviction for three smuggling type offences - smuggling of prohibited or heavily taxed goods as part of an organised group - undeclared exportation of prohibited or heavily taxed goods committed as part of an organised group – conspiracy – driver he employed arrested while driving a lorry which transported five tons of smuggled cigarettes – argued that there was a lack of clarity in the warrant in relation to the offences – correspondence – test for correspondence – Court determined that there was correspondence – argued that the warrant lacked the required information – argued that it was void for uncertainty – argued that the warrant does not provide adequate particulars and/or any adequate information about his alleged criminal conduct – objectives for the description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed - enable the High Court, in its capacity as executing judicial authority, to be satisfied that it is appropriate to endorse the warrant for execution in this jurisdiction - enable the executing judicial authority to be satisfied as to correspondence in cases in which double criminality is required to be demonstrated - enable the respondent to know precisely for what it is that his surrender is sought - totality of the information provided in this case was sufficient information as to the circumstances under which the offences were committed – argued that the warrant provides no information to show that his alleged actions or conduct would, if committed outside the territory of this State, constitute a criminal offence within this State – argued that the warrant fails to provide proof that s. 44 of the Act is inapplicable to his case - a person shall not be surrendered under this Act if the offence specified in the European arrest warrant issued in respect of him or her was committed or is alleged to have been committed in a place other than the issuing state and the act or omission of which the offence consists does not, by virtue of having been committed in a place other than the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State - clear that the substantive offences of the smuggling of cigarettes and the attempted exportation of the cigarettes took place in France - French law permits those involved in the offence at the level of preparation or instruction to be held liable as an accomplice – “to be punished as the main offence” - conspiracy offence had as its object the carrying out of the substantive offences in France - law of France allows those who participate in the conspiracy to be held responsible for the offences which are carried out on the territory of France - extraterritorial jurisdiction – Irish law provides for extraterritoriality - he has not shown that the second condition of s. 44 has been met - abuse of process - continued prosecution in the proceedings when his trial and sentencing had been finalised in - failure to disclose the onward progression of the proceedings against him in France to trial and sentence him – earlier EAW had to be withdrawn as it transpired that he had been convicted and sentenced in his absence and was no longer sought for prosecution - relevant procedural events - a second or subsequent application for surrender for the same offence may be made –Court did not accept there was any mala fides on the part of the issuing judicial authority – argued that his surrender was an disproportionate interference with his enjoyment of his private life and family life – medical situation – suffered massive heart attack - medical report - suitability for travel – Court found that the potential restriction on travel is not a matter that would make it disproportionate to order his surrender in the circumstances - public interest in the extradition is high – argued he should not be surrendered because the domestic conviction, sentence or detention orders in France are not immediately enforceable against him - report from a French lawyer - principle of conforming interpretation - the requirement that the EAW specify that the conviction, sentence or detention order be immediately enforceable is satisfied if the issuing judicial authority has indicated that there is an enforceable judgment by following the format set out in the form of the EAW contained in the annex to the Framework Decision – must state such sentence or order be enforceable against a requested person - the French authorities have stated that the EAW is based upon the arrest warrants issued at the investigation stage which have been maintained by the sentencing court – Court ordered his surrender.