Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 5

Other Questions. - Extradition of Irish Citizen.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Question:

14 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the request by the German Government for the extradition of an Irish citizen, Róisín McAliskey, for questioning in relation to a matter on which she has not been charged and in respect of which there may be no evidence against her; if he will protest to the British authorities for keeping her up to recently in extremely inhumane conditions pending such possible extradition. [7538/97]

Mary O'Rourke

Question:

43 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give details of the discussions, if any, he has had with the German Chancellor at a Brussels meeting about the case of Róisín McAliskey. [6605/97]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

58 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the outcome of his recent approaches to the British Government regarding the case of Róisín McAliskey; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7534/97]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 43 and 58 together.

I would refer the Deputies to my statement in the House on 26 February 1997 in the Adjournment Debate which gave a full account of my action in the case of Róisín McAliskey to that date. Since that date, on my instructions the Irish Embassy in London has continued to monitor closely Ms McAliskey's circumstances. The Embassy has been in continuous contact with British officials to follow up on the humanitarian concerns I expressed to the British Ambassador on 19 February 1997. Ms McAliskey was visited again yesterday by an Embassy official and she has now received five consular visits of this kind. The Embassy has also been active in facilitating visits by Members of this House and other public representatives. An Embassy official attended the hearing in Bow Street magistrate's court on 12 March 1997 when Ms McAliskey was further remanded to 9 April 1997.

On 7 March 1997 the British Embassy advised my Department that Ms McAliskey's security classification was being revised downwards from category A high risk to category A standard risk and this would facilitate a more flexible approach by the Governor of Holloway Prison, particularly in terms of her access to various facilities in the prison.

I raised Ms McAliskey's case with the Secretary of State, Mr. Patrick Mayhew at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which was held in Dublin on 12 March 1997. I strongly reiterated the widespread humanitarian concern about her treatment and that of her unborn child. I urged that she should be allowed to keep her baby after the birth and that the British authorities should make clear there was no question of her being shackled before, during or after it. The Secretary of State made clear at his subsequent press conference that Ms McAliskey will not be restrained either during her journey to and from hospital for the birth or during her stay there. I welcome the decision announced the day after the conference meeting that Ms McAliskey will be allowed to keep her baby after birth and to use the mother and child unit at Holloway Prison.

The House will be aware that a further application for bail by Ms McAliskey was denied by the High Court in London on 14 March 1997. The Irish Embassy in London remains in close contact with the British authorities on all aspects of her care and she will be visited again on my instructions very shortly.

From contact we have had at senior official level with German officials with a view to clarifying the position of the German authorities regarding the question of bail for Ms McAliskey, I understand the German authorities have now made clear again to the British Crown Prosecution Service that the German request of 17 December 1996 for Ms McAliskey to be detained pending extradition to Germany stands. The German authorities have also stated their view that the enforcement of this request is a matter for the British courts which must decide on bail applications.

I have emphasised before that the Government's concern in this case is a humanitarian one. Ms McAliskey's treatment while she is in custody pending a decision on the German extradition application is a matter for the British authorities and I have pursued our concern vigorously with them. The improvements in her treatment which have recently been announced are to be welcomed, but I assure the Deputies we will continue to monitor closely all developments in this case.

Will the Minister agree there are two separate grounds on which this lady could not be extradited from this jurisdiction if she had been arrested here: first, there is no extradition to Germany in respect of one's own citizens and, second, our law does not permit the extradition of a person for questioning? Will he confirm this lady has not been charged with an offence, that she is only wanted for questioning in Germany to see whether evidence may be obtained in the future, and that this is unsatisfactory use of the extradition procedure, which was not envisaged in this country or in the extradition procedures of a number of other countries?

Most Deputies are aware the extradition of a person to another jurisdiction with which we do not have reciprocal extradition arrangements and which does not permit the extradition of its own nationals is prohibited, and that is the position as the Deputy describes where the extradition of an Irish citizen to Germany is sought. I am not absolutely familiar with the German constitutional provisions in this regard. My understanding is that in the UK the German authorities will be required to establish a prima facie case in this instance, but that has not been done to date.

Will the Minister agree no charges have been laid as yet against Ms McAliskey? In what respect does he envisage a prima facie case being made?

The Deputy is correct that no charges have been laid. I have questioned the delays in this matter but I have not received satisfactory answers. The German authorities have reaffirmed to the British Crown Prosecution Service that their request of 17 December for Ms McAliskey to be detained pending extradition to Germany stands. They also stated their view that the enforcement of this request is a matter for the British courts which must decide on bail applications. On further questioning I was told the German authorities would have to provide information to the British court, upon which the extradition application will be founded.

Did the Minister discuss this matter with the German Chancellor when he met him recently in Brussels? Has he a difficulty with that question?

I am wondering when did I meet the German Chancellor in Brussels.

That is up to the Minister. I read that such a meeting took place.

No, it did not.

Why then is the Minister taking the question?

I am taking all questions of relevance to Ms McAliskey.

Did the Minister meet anybody from the German authorities, at federal or any other level, and did he discuss with them the matter of their request for detention of Ms McAliskey pending extradition? Did he discuss with the German authorities, including the German Ambassador here or in any other country, why they are insisting upon extradition, or whether it is they or the Crown authorities in the UK who are so insisting?

There is a misunderstanding on the Deputy's part. I have not had discussions with the German Chancellor. Perhaps the Deputy is referring to a meeting of the European Christian Democratic Parties attended by the Taoiseach some weeks ago at which the Chancellor would have been present. I think that meeting was held in Brussels.

I addressed the question to the Taoiseach and his office contacted me to say it was not a matter for him but rather for the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to reply to. I expect the Minister is in contact with the Taoiseach——

Yes, regularly.

——and therefore he should be able to answer the question. It seems a great mystery.

There is no mystery. I am informing the Deputy that I did not have contact with the German Chancellor on this or any other matter since the Dublin summit.

I request that the matter be clarified. I put down my question in good faith to the Taoiseach and his office contacted me directly to say he could not answer me but that the question would be directed to the Minister for reply. The Minister now tells me that he cannot answer the question because he did not meet the German Chancellor. Did the Taoiseach discuss with the German Chancellor the issue of Róisín McAliskey? Was there Government intervention on this matter?

I am aware of much of the discussion that took place at the meeting, but I am not sure if the Taoiseach had what I would describe as a bilateral discussion with Chancellor Kohl on that occasion. There was a meeting primarily in regard to European Union matters. I will, however, find out the information for the Deputy and convey it to her.

I accept what the Minister has said, but it seems odd that I was shunted from one person to another and that the person in whose lap the question is left is not given the precise information. I regard that as highly unsatisfactory. Does the Minister know precisely who is responsible for insisting on Miss McAliskey's continued detention? Is he requesting bail for her on behalf of the Irish Government?

This will be the third time for me to reply to this question. Having sought further information, I understand the German authorities have made it clear again to the British Crown prosecution service that the German request of 17 December 1996 for Miss McAliskey to be detained pending extradition to Germany stands. There was some uncertainty about this matter when we discussed this case on an Adjournment debate. Given the humanitarian circumstances, I personally believe she should be given bail. While I accept these are matters for the UK courts, we have stated on many occasions that she should receive bail on humanitarian grounds.

It is ridiculous that questions tabled to the Taoiseach are referred to the Minister. I tabled a question to the Taoiseach about his meeting on Cuba with President Clinton, but it ended up on the Minister's desk. The Taoiseach should discuss his own meetings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A relevant question, please.

In regard to Deputy O'Rourke's question, the Taoiseach's office should at least have conveyed the message to the Minister so that he could have delivered it to the Deputy.

The Minister said he understood the German authorities would have to provide a prima facie case before extradition could take place. A prima facie case would have to relate to particular charges and there would have to be sufficient evidence to enable a conviction to be obtained. How can there be a prima facie case in this matter when charges have not been made?

Following the discussion on this matter on the Adjournment I sought further information on the position of the German Government and on the procedures in Germany for grounding an extradition application between Germany and the United Kingdom. The information I received stated that the German authorities have not compiled the information on which to make the application. I told them the delay was unacceptable. I was also informed that if the extradition is granted it will probably be appealed to a number of courts which would take a considerable amount of time. I am still seeking further information on the actual basis on which the German authorities will ground an application for bail, but it is probably not yet available.

In regard to the matter to which Deputy Kitt referred, the Taoiseach did not raise the question with the German Chancellor.

That is interesting.

He does not like to annoy people by asking too many questions.

Top
Share