THE State was not under an obligation to a victim of sexual abuse to process extradition warrants speedily in 1993, it was claimed in the High Court yesterday.
The 25 year old Belfast woman has brought a claim for damages against the State arising from the case of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, was asked yesterday to decide a preliminary issue on whether the Attorney General had a duty to process speedily" the extradition warrants issued by the RUC.
The handling by the Attorney General's office of the extradition application provoked a political storm in November 1994 which led to the collapse of the Fianna Fail/Labour government.
The woman, in her statement of claim, alleged that between 1982 and 1987 she was sexually abused by Smyth, who was living in the State when the extradition requests were made in April 1993.
She claimed that despite repeated requests, the Attorney General or his servants failed neglected and refused to endorse the warrants.
Smyth, according to the statement of claim, was convicted at Belfast Crown Court on June 20th, 1994, of 17 charges of sexual abuse.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for the State, submitted that the Attorney General's functions under the Extradition Acts were to ensure the provisions of the legislation were complied with from the point of view of the person whose extradition was being sought.
There was nothing in the Acts which would suggest or give rise to a legal relationship (a relationship of proximity) between the Attorney General and victims of crimes allegedly committed by the person whose extradition was required.
The imposition of a "duty of care" on the Attorney General might carry a risk, no matter how slight, that he would be influenced by considerations other than those at issue under the Extradition Acts.
Mr Gallagher submitted there was no constitutional duty or obligation imposed on the State to consider the request for Smyth's extradition and to process the request speedily.