Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the failure of the Government to explain the lack of response to the application for the extradition of Donna Maguire.
Adjournment Debate. - Extradition Application.
The Donna Maguire extradition case is a further example of the Government's ambivalence on extradition.Requests for a clear statement on the facts of this case have been met with evasion. Ultimately brief statements from Government sources, none of which gave the facts and which are themselves conflicting, were issued. The refusal to give basic facts has been justified on totally spurious grounds.
What I am seeking are matters of fact relative to the actions of the Minister for Justice and not matters of prejudice affecting a person now facing criminal charges in another jurisdiction. It is important to recall that this Government had no difficulty issuing a full statement on the Patrick Ryan case in December 1988 outlining the basic facts, but of course that statement was issued to justify a refusal to extradite.
The West German authorities now say they are flabbergasted by the actions of this Government, who stand indicted not just in this country but before the international community. It is clear that the Government have no interest in ensuring effective extradition procedures or in combating international terrorism. Why has the Minister failed to justify his actions — or inactions — in dealing with this case?
I mentioned that there were three statements. The first emanated from the Department of the Taoiseach. I heard it said it was on the authority of the Attorney General but the copy furnished does not bear his name. It merely stated that in this case the appropriate procedures had been followed. No other information was given. Then we had a further statement or non-statement from a spokesperson from the Department of Justice. Whether this was on the authority of the Minister for Justice has not been explained. Here again we have a repetition of the wording, that the appropriate procedures were followed and the Minister was setting up a committee — enough to get him a headline in the Irish Independent this morning — appearing to give the impression that he was taking some action but again not giving the facts of the case.
The third Government source statement emanated from á member of the Progressive Democrats. He came up with a view which seemed to conflict totally with the other two statements in that not alone did he not repeat the standard phrase in the other statements that the appropriate procedures were followed, he suggested that there were no such procedures and no extradition could have taken place.
I am seeking the facts, not matters of prejudice, affecting this person. The basic facts the Minister should furnish include whether a request for the extradition of this person was made, by whom it was made, when it was made, whether the Minister, pursuant to the Act, sought further information in relation to such request and whether the Minister made an order pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act; if not why not? Was a warrant issued? These are the facts on which the Minister has been very coy indeed. Spurious reasons have been produced for ensuring that no facts have been given by the Minister. I emphasise I am talking about matters of fact, not prejudice. It was very clear that in 1988 this Government were trying to justify the non-extradition of Patrick Ryan and they were able, through the Office of the Attorney General, as recorded in this House on 13 December 1988, to issue a 16 page statement outlining fully the facts at that time, despite the fact that included in that statement was a reference to serious charges still to a be faced by Patrick Ryan which were a matter for investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The only conclusion I can come to is that there has been an attempt by the Minister to cover up his failure to discharge his responsibility as provided for in the Extradition Act and by international obligation. Corroboration for this conclusion comes from, firstly, the failure to make the full facts known; secondly, the three conflicting statements issued from Government sources; thirdly his apparent failure to notify the West German authorities who as recently as yesterday said they were flabbergasted by the Minister's reaction — or non-reaction — to their request and, fourthly, by his refusal to participate in Tuesday night's "Today Tonight" programme to explain his action or inaction on this application.
Section 26 of the Extradition Act, 1965, sets out clearly the statutory responsibility of the Minister for Justice. Under that section he has three options. The first option provides that he shall by order signify to a justice of the District Court that a request has been made, whereupon the district justice issues a warrant. That arises if he does not pursue the other two options. The second option is that he may seek further information and set a time limit for the receipt thereof. The third option is that he may refuse the request on certain grounds. He now says in one of these statements that he did not refuse the request, so that is that option out of the way. That leaves two options. The Minister has a duty and an obligation in relation to his statutory responsibility here to tell us what he did, if anything. Did he pursue the second option? Did he seek further information? Did he set a time limit? If he did so, although it seems strange that the West German authorities should be flabbergasted at the moment about his inaction in the matter, let him tell us. The only other option then open under the Act, if he did not pursue option No. 2, was to make an order and refer the matter to a district justice to issue a warrant.
I come to the third Government source statement in this matter, the Progressive Democrat statement. If that is correct, why did the Minister not say it? Why was such a point not issued on the Minister's authority that that was the problem in relation to this application? Further questions arise. If that was the reason, why did he not tell the West German authorities? Why did he not tell the public here? Most important of all, why did he not take remedial action in relation to the amendment of the regulation which was pinpointed in that statement?
Why does this ambivalence continue while the murders and bombings continue both on this island and on the Continent?We are talking about the killing of people young and old, from eight month old babies to 80 year olds, some of them Irish, some of them British, some of them Australian. Nationality does not seem to matter. Murder most foul is being commited by people who have no mandate from anyone but themselves and are answerable to neither God nor man.
The Fine Gael position on extradition is very clear. We believe extradition is essential to defeat terrorism and serious crime. It should be a standard part of the relationship between civilised countries. There are two main approaches necessary, through international bodies such as the Council of Europe in having tighter conventions and through the EC to increase co-operation and on the domestic front to get rid of the obvious loopholes in our domestic law. The Government stand indicted before the Dáil, before the country, and now before the international community. This case discloses, first, a cover-up. It would never have come to light were it not for the fact that it was revealed by the West German authorities. Secondly, we have ambiguous, evasive and conflicting statements from Government sources. Out of that morass of evasion I want the truth in relation to the Minister's actions — or lack of them. What are the facts of this case? How did it happen? The Minister is before the bar of this House to explain his actions and I demand a full and comprehensive response from him.
I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the Government's position in this matter. Deputies will appreciate that as the person concerned in this is currently facing criminal charges before a court in Belgium and as there have been indications that she will be the subject of extradition proceeding between Germany and Belgium, I must of necessity avoid any comments on the facts or circumstances of the case which could conceivably prejudice those judicial proceedings. We in this House have already had occasion to be conscious of those dangers in matters of this kind.
The Government issued a statement on this matter on 18 June and a further statement was issued by a spokesperson of my Department yesterday with my approval. What I hope has been made clear in those statements is that extradition requests are dealt with in accordance with the law of the country to which the application is made. Ireland is not unique in this regard. The position in all countries is that extradition requests are subject to the law of the requested state. In this case Irish law applies and Irish law in this context reflects the relevant international law, namely the European Convention on Extradition and the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Ireland is a party to both those conventions and fully subscribes to their provisions. The operation of extradition arrangements is not a simple matter either here or elsewhere. It is generally recognised that such arrangements must have regard to certain basic legal rights which every citizen is entitled to. The relevant legal and procedural requirements must be met before a successful application for extradition can be made before the courts. No state has an automatic, conveyour belt type extradition system. Every state has built into its legal system some form of examination of extradition applications to ensure that they comply with the law. Some continental countries go so far in ensuring the protection of the rights of their own nationals who are the subject of extradition requests as to refuse to extradite them in any circumstances. All states need to examine extradition requests carefully and this invariably takes time.
Deputies will appreciate the need for particular care in the examination of extradition requests when the requesting state has a completely different legal system from that of the state receiving the request. Any suggestion that an extradition application in the case in question was refused is without foundation. I want to outline briefly to the House what happened in this case.
The application for extradition was received here and examined thoroughly by the relevant legal advisers. I have already outlined to the House the reason such a thorough examination is required. When the legal advisers on the matter had satisfied themselves as to the action that should be taken the application was dealt with in the appropriate way.
It is important that we look to the future and be as constructive as possible about the question of any future applications for extradition which we may receive from Germany. We want to make sure that any difficulties which might arise in such cases, because of the fundamentally different legal systems which operate here and in Germany, should be minimised and, if possible, avoided altogether. For this reason we have made proposals to the German authorities that a special working group of senior officials from the Irish and Bonn Governments should meet to see what improvements can be made in the arrangements for extradition between our two countries.
More non-information.