Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 May 2001

Vol. 535 No. 3

Written Answers - Extradition Cases.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

153 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in the extradition case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; if he has completed his sentence here; if he is still on remand; if so the reason therefor; if he is to remain on remand indefinitely; if due regard has been had for his constitutional and legal rights here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12671/01]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The person concerned completed, on 19 March 2001, a three month sentence in Mountjoy prison and was transferred to Cloverhill remand prison where he is currently held on foot of seven orders for extradition.

Further to my response to Parliamentary Question No. 189 of 12 April 2001, in the High Court on that date the person in question, contrary to the position stated in his letter of 6 April 2001, stated that he wished to proceed with his appeal and to consult a solicitor. The High Court instructed that the person be given the names of three solicitors, one of whom he could contact for legal advice in relation to his extradition. This information was supplied to him after the hearing.

On 25 April 2001, the person made a written statement that he was not availing of the services of a solicitor and repeated his earlier statement that he was withdrawing his appeal and was consenting to extradition.

In relation to the outstanding charge in this jurisdiction referred to in my response to Parliamentary Question No. 134 of 29 March 2001, the District Court, following a plea of guilty, imposed on 11 April 2001, a sentence of three months' imprisonment which was suspended for two years and remanded the person on bail until 17 October 2001, to pay a sum of £631 by way of compensation.

I understand that the case is to be brought back before the District Court either today or in the immediate future in relation to its order of 11 April 2001. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the case.