Snowden, Official Secrets, extrateritoriality

Carawaystick

As far as I can see from a quick search on statutebook.ie, the OSA of 63 is the only one

That makes it an offence to disclose official secrets to foreign agents or illegal organisations.

Foreign agents are defined, illegal agents orgs. are linked to a 1939 offences against the state act, which I presume is heavily amended, and uncodified, so I haven't bothered looking if it means orgs other than provos or the inla etc

Anyway, I presume orgs have to be deemed illegal ahead of the fact.

So would an irish citizen releasing secrets to wikileaks outside of Ireland be breaking the osa?

Really my question is
if Ed Snowden came here, could he be extradited to US? Isn't there the principle that an act must be illegal here before a person can be extradited

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

As far as I can see from a quick search on statutebook.ie, the OSA of 63 is the only one

That makes it an offence to disclose official secrets to foreign agents or illegal organisations.

Foreign agents are defined, illegal agents orgs. are linked to a 1939 offences against the state act, which I presume is heavily amended, and uncodified, so I haven't bothered looking if it means orgs other than provos or the inla etc

Anyway, I presume orgs have to be deemed illegal ahead of the fact.

So would an irish citizen releasing secrets to wikileaks outside of Ireland be breaking the osa?

Really my question is
if Ed Snowden came here, could he be extradited to US? Isn't there the principle that an act must be illegal here before a person can be extradited

Section 4 OSA

"4.—(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

Carawaystick

infosys wrote: »

Section 4 OSA

"4.—(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

has section 4 extraterritoriality?
S.9 has


Also has the osa ever been challenged on a morality (or have any freedom of speech issues ever turned on morality)

Manach

It could be that such a request be also interpreted in light not only of the OSA but also the Freedom of Information Act, where the access to information is more liberally interpreted. Plus there is the ghost in the machine that is the ECHR.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

has section 4 extraterritoriality?
S.9 has


Also has the osa ever been challenged on a morality (or have any freedom of speech issues ever turned on morality)

If extraterritorial effect is an issue which I doubt it would be, the question would be where was the offence committed. If a Irish citizen gets information in their position as a civil servant and then goes on a plane and goes to London and reveals that secret I would still think he is in breach of section 4. As the victim of the crime is in effect the nation of ireland and the secrets stolen came from ireland it may be the same as a person stealing the book of kells taking it across the border and selling it the offence still is committed in ireland.

The real question is if he gets here and claims Asylum then he can not be extradited if he gets Asylum. The Asylum process is independant!!!! if Government. So if he manages to get here that application would need to be sorted first the big question is would he have bail pending those decisions but I doubt we will ever know.

A bit on the asylum v extradition issue http://www.irishtimes.com/news/snowden-would-not-be-extradited-during-asylum-process-1.1454682

darkhorse

infosys wrote: »

If a Irish citizen gets information in their position as a civil servant and then goes on a plane and goes to London and reveals that secret I would still think he is in breach of section 4.[/QUOTE]

Even if that information was pertaining to the spying of a government institution in London? Because that is in effect what happened, as far as I am aware.

Ash.J.Williams

I'm not reading too much into the irish court decision, seeing that Shatter pi$$ed on the parade telling the USA they could reapply and take the judges advice and get it right....I'd hate to live in a country that shopped snowden. Whatever he did he doesn't deserve the fate that awaits him.

Cody Pomeray

The Attorney General v. Snowden is online. That was quick.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/512a85682101608880257ba200519914?OpenDocument

We all know Judge Mac Eochaidh rejected the application, but this was interesting:

The question of where the offence took place is not a minor detail but is a matter which could have very serious consequences in any further stage that might be reached in an extradition process. That is because if it is the case that the offences took place outside of the territory of the United States of America, the question will arise as to whether there is extraterritorial effect in respect of the US offences, but more importantly, whether the Irish equivalent offences have an extraterritorial effect or aspect to them. There would need to be sufficient similarity between the two offences in order for there to be an extradition. That is a matter that is not before the court now and is of no concern. I am simply referring to that as to why I think it is important that the place where the commission of the offences be indicated.