BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> United States of America v Dempsey [2018] EWHC 1724 (Admin) (06 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1724.html Cite as: [2018] WLR 110, [2018] 1 WLR 110, [2018] EWHC 1724 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 420 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary: [2018] WLR(D) 420] [Buy ICLR report: [2018] 4 WLR 110] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Admin |
||
B e f o r e :
and
MR JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS
____________________
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
BRIAN DEMPSEY |
Respondent |
____________________
Simon Farrell QC & Ben Cooper (instructed by JFH Law) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 7 June 2018
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice William Davis:
Introduction
Factual and procedural background
- He and another person had decided some months before to travel to Syria to help refugees.
- He had no intention to fight in Syria.
- He had asked his brother to enquire of the U.S. Department of State whether it was legal for him to enter Syria.
- He had generally resided in Azaz when he had been in Syria. He had encountered no members of any terrorist organisation or of the Free Syrian Army whilst he had been there.
- There was no-one in Azaz who was involved in fighting those supporting the incumbent government of Bashar al-Assad.
At the conclusion of the interview the Respondent asked the agent of the FBI whether "if I did actually fight in Syria would I be arrested?"
- The Respondent made a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States.
- The Respondent acted wilfully i.e. deliberately and with knowledge (a) that the statement was untrue and (b) that his conduct was unlawful.
- The statement was material to an investigation i.e. if believed it had a natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing the FBI's decisions or activities.
- The offence involved international or domestic terrorism.
The judgment of the District Judge
"Whilst both cases (i.e. Sookoo and Hamshaw) are of a completely different order to that of the (Respondent's) case there is remarkably little case law to assist. The (Appellant) is unable to refer to any case law which assists the contention that "making a false statement with no prior indication of the unlawfulness of doing so constitutes the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of public justice….." Moreover, the (Appellant) has not shown that (the Respondent's) alleged conduct was intended to pervert the course of public justice.
I am also not satisfied that the consequences of the (Respondent's) action are such that UK law would provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction under similar circumstances…
…The (Appellant's) assertion that the intended effect (or actual effect) of the false statements was to prejudice (or potentially prejudice) the criminal investigation in the United States could hold water only if (the Respondent) were aware of the criminal investigation in question. However, the (Appellant's) submissions to date suggest only that (the Respondent) was aware he was being interviewed by an FBI agent not that he was aware that the interview was being conducted pursuant to particular criminal or judicial proceedings."
The District Judge then concluded that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the conduct alleged on the part of the Respondent would amount to the offence of perverting the course of public justice. In relation to extra-territoriality he said that he was not satisfied that the consequences of the Respondent's conduct were such that UK law would provide for jurisdiction in those circumstances.
The offence of perverting the course of public justice
Extraneous considerations
The competing arguments in relation to the substantive appeal
Discussion
Conclusion