There was nothing to support the suggestion by Mr John Gilligan that the Garda and English police prolonged his detention in England "through some supposed collusive arrangement" in order that evidence against him was perfected in relation to the murder of Veronica Guerin, the House of Lords concluded yesterday.
Handing down their written judgment a month after they dismissed Mr Gilligan's appeal against his return to Ireland to stand trial for Ms Guerin's murder and drugs and firearms offences, the panel of five law lords agreed that the Garda and English police "quite properly co-operated" during their investigations in Ireland and England.
Counsel for Mr Gilligan had argued that the offences contained in Irish warrants, which were endorsed by a London magistrate under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, did not correspond to offences in English law.
However, insisting that the test of correspondence was satisfied and that the argument was "specious" in some instances, Lord Steyn said the word "correspond" was not a term of art, but was an ordinary English word and must be so applied.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon agreed, saying the word "correspondence" in the Act meant a "general similarity".
Furthermore, Mr Gilligan's counsel contended that a magistrate could have stayed the proceedings against him under the 1965 Act as an abuse of process. Rejecting that argument, the law lords said that for the purposes of the 1965 Act Ireland was not considered a foreign country and to that end there was no extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Act was intended to facilitate a "simpler and more expeditious process" than extradition procedures.
Moreover, Irish courts were able to guard against abuses and it was the view of Lord Steyn and his fellow law lords that neither the High Court nor a magistrate had the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings.
Mr Gilligan's return to Ireland was delayed this week pending the outcome of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which he submitted to the Divisional Court in London.
The full text of this judgment can be found at www.parliament.uk