Bailey’s appeal on France extradition to be determined in Supreme Court

JOURNALIST Ian Bailey has secured leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order for his extradition to France in connection with the killing of French filmmaker Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Co Cork some 14 years ago.

Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled yesterday that an issue arose from his High Court judgment in Mr Bailey’s case which was of such exceptional public importance it should be determined by the Supreme Court.

That issue is whether the surrender of a person is prohibited by section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, where the offence for which surrender is sought is committed here and where the victim is a national of the state requesting extradition which seeks to exercise an extra- territorial jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own laws when the DPP here has decided not to prosecute the person.

Mr Bailey’s lawyers argued the French extra-territorial jurisdiction is very extensive and the Irish courts should scrutinise it carefully as “everyone is in the firing line”.

In a statement issued last night the Association for the Truth About the Murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier said it recognised the decision of the High Court but was “surprised” that the reason given by Mr Justice Peart’s for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was an issue already discussed and rejected by his decision of March 18.

The judge placed a stay on the order for extradition pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal and remanded Mr Bailey on bail to tomorrow when he will have to enter a fresh bail bond.

The judge directed that a notice of appeal should be lodged by 4pm tomorrow and also awarded costs of the High Court proceedings to the state against Mr Bailey. A stay on that costs order applies pending the appeal.

Mr Bailey, aged 53, of The Prairie, Schull, Co Cork, was in court for the judge’s decision.

In his High Court ruling in February, Mr Justice Peart found the warrant issued by the French authorities clearly stated its purpose was to “prosecute” Mr Bailey, did not state the purpose was “investigation” and the French view was there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Bailey.

The French procedure requires Mr Bailey to be brought before an examining magistrate and given the opportunity to respond to the evidence before any decision is made to put him on trial or not.

Mr Bailey’s lawyers argued the case raised three points of “exceptional importance”. The third issue related to what protections should be afforded to a person to protect him from repeated attempts at prosecution or criminal investigation where the DPP has decided not to prosecute him.