The way was cleared yesterday for the extradition of US lawyer Ms Beth Ann Carpenter back to the US to face a murder charge when she withdrew her application for an inquiry into the legality of her detention in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin.
A District Court order for Ms Carpenter's extradition was made early last year, but she initiated proceedings challenging her detention here. Her decision to withdraw those proceedings means she may be extradited at any time.
Ms Carpenter (34), a former public defender from Hartford, Connecticut, is wanted by the authorities in that state. She is accused of capital felony murder, murder and conspiracy to murder her brother-in-law, Anson "Buzz" Clinton, who was shot dead in Connecticut on March 10th, 1994.
During an extradition hearing in Dublin District Court on February 9th last year Ms Carpenter's former colleague and lover, Mr Haiman Clein, said in an affidavit that he had hired his cocaine dealer, Mark Depres, to carry out the killing at Ms Carpenter's request.
Nine days later an application was made to the High Court, which ordered an inquiry into the legality of Ms Carpenter's detention in Mountjoy Prison. Documents were sought by her lawyers, and last June the High Court ordered the State to produce a range of documents.
The State appealed that order, and the matter came before the Supreme Court last March. Mr Peter Charleton SC, for the Attorney General, said the State, which believed it had handed over all documents relating to assurances given by the US authorities to the Irish authorities that the death penalty would not be implemented should Ms Carpenter be extradited and convicted, would check again. If there were any outstanding documents, they would be produced. Ms Carpenter's lawyers had also sought discovery of all communications and notes of oral communications and assurances ex changed between the prosecuting and/or the judicial authorities in Connecticut and Haiman Clein, Mark Depres and/or their legal representatives concerning both men's agreement to give evidence against Ms Carpenter in the proceedings in the US.
Mr Charleton said he did not believe the State had any documents regarding these matters, but if there were any they would be handed over. The State would also hand over a video recording sent by the Connecticut authorities regarding conditions in Niantic State Penitentiary. Ms Carpenter had argued it would be a violation of her bodily integrity if she were sent to that prison because of inhumane and degrading conditions there. In court yesterday, Ms Aileen Donnelly, for Ms Carpenter, said she wished to withdraw her application for an inquiry into the legality of her detention.
She said Ms Carpenter had been in custody under a District Court order for her extradition. She said the provisions of Part II of the Extradition Act were unique in the sense that apparently the only way to challenge the extradition order (except in the case of extraditions to the UK or Northern Ireland) was to make an Article 40 application. Her client accepted a valid District Court order had been made and she withdrew her Article 40 challenge.
Ms Carpenter was returned to Mountjoy.