Dublin High Court orders extradition of suspect in 1996 PIRA mortar attack in Germany

Not much coverage of this so far, but the Irish Times reports that the High Court in Dublin has ordered the extradition of a suspect in the Provisional IRA mortar attack on a British army barracks near Osnabrück, Germany, in June 1996.

In October last year, James Anthony Oliver Albert Corry (46) was arrested in Killorglin, Co Kerry, on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued by German authorities.

Later that month, Mr Corry, who is from north Belfast, spoke to a reporter from the Sunday Life when it was noted that

Corry denies having any involvement in IRA activities and has received support from Sinn Fein as he prepares to fight his case.

In May July this year the Irish News reported that a 5 October date had been set for the extradition hearing.  On 15 October The Kerryman carried a report of the legal arguments during that hearing.

Today in the High Court in Dublin, the Irish Times reports that Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly rejected the defence arguments and ordered that Mr Corry be surrendered to Germany.  The report notes that “Mr Corry was remanded in custody today until November 21st with consent to bail.”

From the Irish Times report

Delivering her judgement, Ms Justice Donnelly said that there is nothing “oppressive or discriminatory” about the respondent being sought to face trial and punishment in the same manner as any other person who is alleged to have committed an offence of attempted murder in Germany.

The judge said that although the court had regard to the “significant culpable delay” in seeking the surrender of the respondent, the public interest in his prosecution for this alleged organised offence of attempted murder through the use of explosives was “not thereby diminished.”

“Furthermore, the court observes that the availability of early release under the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement is a matter that can only be assessed by the Minister for Justice and Equality after a conviction.

“Even in this jurisdiction, any trial and sentence he would face would be that of a maximum of life imprisonment. The court must, and does, proceed on the basis that this is a sentence of life imprisonment that the respondent is facing if convicted of the offence alleged against him,” she said.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,