User:Starsive/sandbox

Minister for Justice v Egharevba [2015] IESC 55, [2015] 6 JIC 2501 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld that that for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, an international money laundering venture could be said to have been committed in France despite the accused residing in Ireland at the time. The reasoning centred around the indivisible nature of the accused's crimes in Ireland, Nigeria and France.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
High Court

(Sentence or two on original crimes, testimony of prostitutes- the willing recipient of illegally obtained funds)

The warrant was first endorsed by (Mr Justice Edwards?/Edwards J?checklater) in the High Court on 16th July 2013, pursuant to section 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant was executed and the acccused brought before the court on 26th July 2013. Ms Egharevba was wanted in the Republic of France on charges of money laundering as a member of an international organised criminal organisation, and criminal conspiracy. She received into her bank account money which had been obtained via the forced prostitution of Nigerian women in Grenoble, France. Prominent members of the criminal organisation would send her sums amounting to tens of thousands of euros, which she would transfer to accounts in Nigeria. The accused did not consent to her transfer to France, objecting on the single point that section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 precluded it.

The article in question specifies that the offence specified in the European warrant must have been committed in the issuing state.

This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Holding of the Supreme Court
The Court held that the warrant was valid, and in doing so (jurisdiction, co-operation).

Denham J

The meaning of s44 was previously considered in Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Bailey [2012]. Affirmed HC findings that appellant failed to meet first condition of s44; and as the two requirements are conjunctive, the conditions were overall not met. Therefore the answer to the first question referred was that s44 was not applicable. He dismissed the appeal and affirmed HC order to surrender appellant to Republic of France.

Court did not answer the other two questions as they referred to hypotheticals, which the SC does not deal with (outside the exception of the article 26 procedure).

This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Holding of the Supreme Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.