Facts of the case:
The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent with a view to placing him on trial for the offence of bank robbery. The respondent opposed his extradition on the ground that it would be a violation of his fundamental human rights.
Outcome of the case:
The High Court dismissed the respondent’s objections on the grounds that the respondent fell short of demonstrating that the would, if extradited, be exposed to a real risk that his fundamental rights would be breached. He was not at risk of having his rights violated by virtue of some characteristic unique to him or his case, such as his membership of a particular group, or his sexuality. The Court therefore did not see a real risk and ordered him to be committed to prison pending extradition.
9.2 In response to a challenge from this Court, counsel for the respondent conceded that Whatever about the possible application of the Convention to any proposed extradition of the respondent from Ireland to the U.S.A, the Charter can have no application because it is not a situation where Ireland is implementing or acting within the scope of E.U. law. In that regard Article 51 of the Charter expressly states (inter alia): 'The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member Stales only when they are implementing Union law'.