Belfast Recorder Judge Tom Burgess has delivered his promised written judgement on the application by the German government for the extradition of Roisin McAliskey and as the BBC reports, on the balance of probability, he has decided that it would be “oppressive” to proceed. Full judgement here. No word yet from the German government.. despite those political talks..From the judgement
54. I have already determined that Ms McAliskey believed from 1998 that the threat of extradition was behind her, a fact confirmed in her mind by the statement of the Attorney-General in 2000. I have determined that I am satisfied that this was a reasonable belief for her to hold (a) in the context of the decision of the Home Secretary, and the basis of that decision and (b) in the absence of any indication from any quarter that the possibility of a re-activation of the proceedings was still in the minds of the German authorities. I confirm that I have placed considerable weight on this factor in my decision.
55. I have also placed weight on the basis of the Home Secretary’s decision that Ms McAliskey’s health precluded her from being extradited, and the need for treatment that was envisaged to be long term and in her home environment.
56. I also place weight on the fact that Ms McAliskey believed, in my view fairly and reasonably, that she had been afforded the opportunity to rebuild her life, as part of the process of tackling of her mental problems. That she did across the wide ambit of all the activities and relationships that formed part of her life. The most telling of these was the decision to have a second child. The statement of the Attorney-General could only have reinforced that belief, and given her confidence that her future lay in her hands.
57. The sense of security arising from the passage of time on its own could allow the Court to decide this matter under Section 11 and Section 14, but any combination with either or both of the other two factors of her health and her advancement in life reinforce my decision.
58. Finally effect already on her health, together with the threat to her future health, whatever the degree, could also be taken into account when considering the question of ‘oppression’.
59. I therefore determine for the reasons I have set out that Ms McAliskey has satisfied me that it would be oppressive to extradite her, and I refuse the application.
60. Finally in that event I would rule that there is no requirement for any further steps to be taken in these proceedings.