Northern Irish man must wait to hear outcome of challenge to his extradition to UK

The warrant seeking the arrest and surrender of a Northern Ireland man, who is alleged to have delivered the trailer in which 39 migrants were found dead in Essex last year, was “wholly unsatisfactory” his legal team have told the Court of Appeal.

Eamon Ronald Harrison (23) of Mayobridge, Co Down, is wanted by Essex police to face 39 counts of manslaughter and one count of conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration.

Ordering Mr Harrison’s extradition to the UK in January, Mr Justice Donald Binchy said the British-Irish citizen was alleged to have been involved in transporting illegal migrants on two previous occasions, and that the trailer at the centre of the Essex discovery was used on one of those occasions.

However, Mr Harrison was granted leave by the High Court last February to challenge his pending extradition to the UK on the grounds that the case raised issues in law.

It is alleged that Mr Harrison delivered the trailer, in which the bodies of 39 Vietnamese nationals were found in an industrial park in Grays, Essex on October 23rd last, to a Belgian port before its onward journey to Britain. The cargo was recorded as “biscuits” and the migrants died from a lack of oxygen between 8pm and 10pm after they had entered UK territorial waters. The temperature inside the unit rose to 38.5 degrees before it “steadily reduced”, and police discovered “bloody hand prints” inside.

The eight women and 31 men had arrived in England last October on a ferry from Zeebrugge in Belgium. The youngest victims were two boys aged 15.

Thursday’s remote hearing saw lawyers, the three judges of the criminal side of the Court of Appeal and the appellant joined by video-link.

Appealing the order for surrender, Mr Harrison’s barrister, Siobhan Stack SC, submitted that the principle issue related to whether additional information was admissible before the High Court given that it did not come from the issuing judicial authority (a magistrate) but from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The barrister argued that the additional information was inadmissible as it was not submitted by the Issuing Judicial Authority as required.

The second point of appeal related to whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the additional information state with sufficient clarity or detail the “circumstances in which the offence … is alleged to have been committed, including the time and place of its commission or alleged commission, and the degree of involvement or alleged degree of involvement of the person in the commission of the offence.”

Ms Stack maintained it was clear that the warrant had completely failed to give a “precise description of the facts” or even to set out what it was alleged Mr Harrison had done. She described the warrant in this case as “brief in the extreme” and said it was “wholly unsatisfactory”. There was no meaningful description of time and place nor a description of the event which Mr Harrison was alleged to have engaged in, she continued.

Nothing more than the vaguest of circumstances and “incredibly bald information” concerning Mr Harrison allegedly dropping off the trailer had been provided, indicated Ms Stack, adding that there was also nothing about how the migrants had come to be in the trailer. She stated that this “critical information” should have been contained in the warrant.

Concluding the legal challenge to Mr Harrison’s pending extradition, Ms Stack said UK authorities should have gone back and issued the correct warrant but that was not done in this case.

Counsel for the Minister for Justice, Ronan Kennedy SC, said there was no question but that this EAW was issued by the Issuing Judicial Authority, namely district judge Michael Snow sitting at Westminster Magistrates Court. He said it had received the appropriate scrutiny in terms of proportionality.

At no time did the warrant seek to address that the CPS was acting as the Issuing Judicial Authority and it was no surprise that information had emanated from the CPS, he submitted. “This confidence underpins the whole system and is the basis for mutual recognition,” he argued.

He further submitted that the High Court judge had engaged in a rigorous analysis of the additional information and whether he should have relied on it.

Furthermore, Mr Kennedy said it was inaccurate to suggest that the warrant was deficient in the way it had been presented to the court and UK authorities had provided a level of detail which far surpassed the level of detail normally provided. The warrant contained most if not all of what was required and was not as “marked” as the appellant would have one believe, he added.

The lawyer explained that what was being alleged against Mr Harrison was quite clear, namely that he was part of a conspiracy and had driven the trailer to a port, where it was loaded onto a ferry. Counsel said it was alleged: “He had a part to play not only in the conspiracy but also in the manslaughter of people”.

President of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice George Birmingham, who sat with Mr Justice John Edwards and Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said the court would reserve its judgment. Mr Harrison was remanded in custody pending delivery of the court’s decision or until further order.

On April 24th, the Court of Appeal heard that UK authorities were no longer seeking to prosecute Mr Harrison for an offence of conspiracy to commit human trafficking under the UK’s Modern Slavery Act.