Tobin case, extradition to Hungary

Tzar Chasm

http://www.kfmradio.com/kfm-radio/national-news/irishman-fighting-extradition-to-hungary.html

Right, this may or may not be the right forum to ask this, but

Whats the story here, I get that the lad was Tried 'inabstentia'(is that the right term? and found guilty in Hungary, but the courtshere decided that he couldnt be extradited.

Now the Authorities have decided thathe can be extradited because of some new law.

I dont understand this Inequality of arms concept, but the thing that I was wonderin about is

Article 15

5. 1° The Oireachtas shall not declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission.

Basicly they ruled before that he hadnt broken any laws here, so how can they now rule that he has.

I've asked this question here because I was looking for an answer to this question and not a debate on his guilt/innocence or the evils of Killing children whilst dangerous driving or the percieved lightness of his sentence in Hungary, those things can be left for another thread in another forum.

what am I missing here??

ResearchWill

The Irish courts never said he never broke a law here. The original European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, stated that a person could be sent to the requesting country if he fled that country. In this case he did not flee he left the country as I assume he had not at that stage been charged with any offence.

When Hungry issued a EAW the Irish courts said correctly we cant send him to hungry because our Act requires that he must have fled. Then in 2009 I think the Act was amended to remove the word fled. So then Hungry issued a new EAW. The question he is asking the court is that a abuse of process. I assume his argument in relation to inequality of arms, is that the state have a power he as a citizen does not have, that being the ability to pass legislation.

Tzar Chasm

Ah OK that makes slightly more sense, I think I see where he's going with the inequality of arms issue now.

but isnt it still the same argument I made there, the government changed the rules AFTER the decision had been made.

What difference does Hungary re issuing the Warant make? does it mean in Legal terms that its being started over again as a new offence or is it still just a rehash of the original extradition attempt

ResearchWill

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Ah OK that makes slightly more sense, I think I see where he's going with the inequality of arms issue now.

but isnt it still the same argument I made there, the government changed the rules AFTER the decision had been made.

What difference does Hungary re issuing the Warant make? does it mean in Legal terms that its being started over again as a new offence or is it still just a rehash of the original extradition attempt

The warrant issued is a new warrant, it's not a new offence, he has been charged, had a trial and been convicted and sentenced in Hungry. That does not change it is a fact.

A EAW in reality does not deal with the crime, only to make sure such a crime would be so in Ireland. Killing 2 children in a car crash, As Ireland has an offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, then the person can be surrendered. The Irish courts only deal with the warrant it just makes sure the warrant complies with Act and that's it, a person can not really argue that he did not commit the crime etc.

Tzar Chasm

OK I get it, Previous arrest warant invalid on technicality, techincality fixed, new arrest warant issued, procedings begin again from scratch, the fact that he's been tried and convicted in Hungary can have no bearing on procedings here, only the validity of the warant, which is now valid.

He's tryin to argue that the state is 'out to get him' or suchlike.