A second application by authorities in France to have Ian Bailey extradited to face trial for the murder 20 years ago of Sophie Toscan du Plantier in Cork has been made without any reference to a previous Supreme Court decision, the judge hearing the case has said.
In exchanges with counsel for the Minister for Justice, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said at no point since March 2012 has there been any indication that the French authorities had taken into account what the Supreme Court said about the first European Arrest Warrant issued for Mr Bailey.
Lawyers for the Minister for Justice told the court there was a still a public interest in having Mr Bailey extradited to France.
The court has heard that French prosecutors issued a new warrant and say Mr Bailey's position has changed because he is now wanted for trial rather than merely questioning.
However his lawyers say no explanation or reasons for this have been offered by the French.
Mr Justice Hunt said the French authorities "have come back to these courts without making the slightest reference" to the previous Supreme Court decision, "they have said nothing at all in relation to what was said by the highest court in this land in relation to the first warrant."
Lawyers for the Minister for Justice said it was not their role of the authorities to do this but they had drawn the courts attention to the finding of one Supreme Court judge that a section of the European Arrest Warrant Act was open to interpretation.
Senior Counsel Robert Barron said the issue needs to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for determination.
He said it was recognised by the Supreme Court that there were two interpretations and the only way it could be resolved conclusively was by the court in Luxembourg.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt remarked that "somebody, somewhere" had appeared to decide that the Supreme Court got it "catastrophically wrong" and the way to correct it is to get the European Courts to tell the Supreme Court they got it wrong.
Mr Barron agreed his submission was that the High Court should refer the matter to Europe because the Supreme Court got it wrong.
However, "with respect," Mr Barron said, nobody was trying to "usurp" the courts.
When asked what was the hope and expectation of referring the matter to Europe, Mr Barron told the judge: That the view on reciprocity was incorrect and that the view of O'Donnell J, in his single dissenting judgment on this issue, was correct.
He agreed the High Court did not need to go further than O'Donnell J's dissenting view but denied he was asking the High Court to decide the Supreme Court majority - four other judges, including the Chief Justice - got it wrong.
Mr Justice Hunt remarked that "somebody, somewhere" wants a contrary view to be taken and it appeared as though there was an "exploration of a method by which the Supreme Court decision might be revisited".
In response lawyers for Mr Bailey said "it was obvious. Every lawyer knows that a judgment of the Supreme Court is final and binding."
Senior Counsel Garrett Simons said an attempt was being made to apply a change in European law retrospectively.
He said the European court was given jurisdiction at the end of 2014 and the Minister for Justice was now trying to apply that retrospectively to a matter which was dealt with by the Supreme Court in 2012.
Mr Bailey has always denied any involvement with the murder of the French filmmaker who was found beaten to death outside her holiday home in Schull, west Cork in December 1996.
He was twice arrested and questioned in connection with her death but was never charged.
The then DPP later described the garda investigation into Mr Bailey as thoroughly flawed and prejudicial.
The extradition application has been adjourned for further submissions in two weeks time.
