The High Court has ordered the extradition of a 66-year-old man who is wanted in the North for the murder of a part-time member of the UDR in Co Armagh over 45 years ago.
James Donegan, of Bruce Manor, Arva in Co Cavan, is wanted by authorities in the North for the murder of 64-year-old Joseph James Porter at Mountnorris in Co Armagh on a date unknown between June 22nd and 25th, 1979.
Mr Donegan is also wanted for a second offence of the possession of a firearm and ammunition with the intent to endanger life as well as belonging to a proscribed organisation, namely the Irish Republican Army.
When he was arrested at Dublin Airport last June having agreed to meet gardaí as he returned home from holidays, Mr Donegan told arresting officers: "I'm an innocent man".
At the High Court on Friday, Mr Justice Patrick McGrath said he was satisfied that none of the objections raised by Mr Donegan met the necessary criteria to refuse his extradition and directed he should be surrendered.
Mr Donegan was arrested by detectives from the Garda Extradition Unit at Dublin Airport following the endorsement of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TaCA) Warrant issued by the Northern Ireland Authorities.
The extradition warrant states that Mr Porter's body was found close to the entrance of his farm at Creggan Road, Mountnorris in Co Armagh on June 24th, 1979. A post-mortem examination conducted that day concluded that Mr Porter had died of gunshot wounds to the head and trunk.
The warrant also states that prior to his death Mr Porter had been a part time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR).
At the High Court on Friday, Mr Justice McGrath noted the objections raised by lawyers for Mr Donegan to his extradition related to whether the alleged offences would correspond to an offence under the law in this jurisdiction and an alleged abuse of process.
He said in considering correspondence in a case such as this one based on circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient to provide a broad outline of the alleged offences. The judge said he was satisfied that the criteria had been met for each of the three offences alleged and the details in the warrant were sufficient to meet section 11A of the Act.
Mr Justice McGrath said the respondent had asserted that his surrender would amount to an abuse of process and noted the first issue raised in support of this argument concerned the decision of the DPP in this jurisdiction not to prosecute.
The judge said the decision by the DPP in 2017 not to prosecute was not a ground for refusal.
There was “no question” of any assurance ever being given that Mr Donegan would not be prosecuted here or elsewhere, he added.
The judge also said the respondent had not adduced any evidence in support of an argument that owing to the passage of time he will not now receive a fair trial in the prosecuting state.
Mr Justice McGrath said the respondent is sought to stand trial for the “most serious offences” and noted this is the first surrender request. An explanation had been given for the circumstances where many years after the event the respondent’s surrender came to be sought, he said, adding there is no evidence of any bad faith or improper “motive”.
“There is no evidence to suggest he will not receive a fair trial,” he added.
The judge noted there was no doubt that the respondent’s surrender would undoubtedly result in the disruption of his family life and said Mr Donegan was a man who also had health difficulties and underwent heart surgery in the summer of 2024.
However, Mr Justice McGrath said no evidence has been put before the court to suggest the UK would not provide sufficient medical attention and said the potential disruption to Mr Donegan’s family life was “nowhere close” to the standard of “gross disruption” necessary to refuse surrender.
The judge said having considered and rejected all the arguments, he found the application for surrender was not “unconscionable” and he therefore made an order for Mr Donegan’s surrender.
Following an application by counsel for Mr Donegan for a stay of one week on his surrender, Mr Justice McGrath adjourned the matter to next Friday, February 7th.
