---

Bid to extradite Ian Bailey rejected

The High Court has ruled that Ian Bailey (pictured) should not be extradited to France over the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier.

A French court last year convicted Mr Bailey, in his absence, of the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier in Schull, Co Cork, in 1996, imposing a 25-year prison sentence.

French authorities then issued a European arrest warrant for Mr Bailey, who has always denied any involvement in the murder.

He was questioned by Gardaí as part of their investigation, but the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there should be no prosecution against Mr Bailey for any charge in relation to the killing.

Reciprocity

This is the third attempt to extradite Mr Bailey, a UK national, to France. In 2012, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision to extradite him, while the High Court rejected a second attempt in 2017.

Today (12 October) Mr Justice Paul Burns said that, for an extradition to be allowed under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, there had to be reciprocity between Ireland and the country seeking the extradition.

He ruled that this was not in place, despite a change in Irish law since the last attempt to extradite Mr Bailey.

Change in law

The application for Mr Bailey’s extradition had argued that the Criminal Law (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) Act 2019 now permits the prosecution of a person for a murder committed outside of Ireland in circumstances where the alleged offender is ordinarily resident in Ireland.

The judge said, however, that France based its extraterritorial jurisdiction on the nationality of the victim, while Ireland’s was based on the nationality or ordinary residence of the alleged perpetrator.

He said that if an Irish citizen was murdered in France by a UK national, who was ordinarily resident in France, Ireland would not exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction nor seek extradition.

'Accrued right'

Mr Justice Burns also decided that Mr Bailey had an “accrued right” not to be extradited as a result of the previous Supreme Court ruling in his favour, despite the change in the law since that judgment.

The judge said there was no suggestion that the change was specifically directed at Mr Bailey or any other individual.