S63 Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform -v- Wharrie [2016] IESC 63 (27 October 2016)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform -v- Wharrie [2016] IESC 63 (27 October 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S63.html
Cite as: [2016] IESC 63

[New search] [Help]



Ruling
Title:
Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform -v- Wharrie
Neutral Citation:
[2016] IESC 63
Supreme Court Record Number:
75/2009
High Court Record Number:
2009 118 EXT
Date of Delivery:
27/10/2016
Court:
Supreme Court
Composition of Court:
Denham C.J., O'Donnell Donal J., McKechnie J., Clarke J., Dunne J., Charleton J., O'Malley J.
Ruling by:
Denham C.J.
Status:
Approved
Result:
Appeal dismissed


THE SUPREME COURT


Appeal No. 75/2009 SC

Denham C. J.
O’Donnell J.
McKechnie J.
Clarke J.
Dunne J.
Charleton J.
O’Malley J.

      BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM



APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
AND


PERRY WHARRIE


RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

Ruling of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 27th October, 2016, by Denham C.J.

1. Counsel for the respondent/appellant recognised that the grounds of appeal in this case have been overtaken by the recent decision of this Court in Balmer v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25 and that the appeal as formulated must fail.

2. Counsel for the respondent/appellant applied to the Court for an adjournment to bring an application to seek to amend the notice of appeal so as to raise a new argument related to the prospective exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and therefore the European Arrest Warrant Scheme, given that his surrender had been postponed pursuant to s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, while he serves a sentence in this jurisdiction which will not be spent until 2020 approximately.

3. During the course of discussions, counsel for the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform stated that a respondent may argue that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender, and the fact that there is a pre-existing s. 16 order will not be a bar. On that basis the Court refuses the application for an adjournment.

4. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the appeal.












BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S63.html