On Saturday, the High Court of Ireland refused to grant a provisional arrest warrant for Edward Snowden, citing an inadequately written request from the United States. The judgment appears to have been published publicly for the first time on Monday.
The NSA leaker remains holed up in a Moscow airport, and he has filed a flurry of asylum requests. This includes paperwork with Ireland—but Irish authorities have said that Snowden can only be considered if he arrives in Ireland. In recent days, Snowden has been granted asylum in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.
Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh outlined the four primary elements of the Extradition Act of 1965 between Ireland and the United States. This document details that the extradition request must include the circumstances of the alleged crimes, when such offenses are alleged to have been committed, where they are alleged to have been committed, and the alleged degree of involvement of the suspect.
The Irish justice cited specifically that he is satisfied with the American details concerning the first and fourth points, but he still has problems with precisely when and where Snowden’s crimes are alleged to have taken place:
The difficulty with this is that we have a timeframe within which Mr. Snowden was definitely in the United States of America and that is between March 2013 and May 19, 2013. Thereafter, Mr. Snowden, on the information available to this court, was outside of the United States of America. I am told that he was in Japan and in Hong Kong.
It is of note that the offences with which Mr. Snowden is charged relate, not to the publication of the information, but to its unauthorized disclosure. The question for this court is whether the request for the provisional warrant tells this court where the unauthorized disclosure took place. It seems to me that there are a number of possibilities.
(i) That the information was disclosed in the United States of America;
(ii) That the disclosure took place in Japan some time on or after May 19, 2013 or in Hong Kong some time after May 20, 2013.
The question of where the offense 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 offenses 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 offenses, but more importantly, whether the Irish equivalent offenses have an extraterritorial effect or aspect to them. There would need to be sufficient similarity between the two offenses 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.
My conclusion in this matter is that the request made on July 5, 2013 by the United States of America through its Embassy in Dublin fails to indicate the place where any of the offenses took place.
Therefore, I am compelled to refuse the application by the United States of America for a provisional Arrest Warrant in respect of Mr. Edward J. Snowden.
However, Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter said in a statement that there is nothing to prevent the US from making a second application to the courts in Dublin with respect to Snowden.
"The determination of the court does not in any way prevent a fresh application being made for a provisional arrest warrant, taking into account the findings of the court," he wrote. "It should be noted that what the court in its judgment today addressed was the issuing of an arrest warrant on the basis of specific information rather than a determination as to whether an individual should or should not be extradited.”
