A US man who went on the run in Ireland after fleeing his home country before he could be sentenced for possessing child abuse material is appealing the High Court’s decision to order his extradition, arguing that prisoners in the requesting state of Louisiana are “systematically” detained beyond their release dates.
John Patrick Navarro’s senior counsel Mark Lynam told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that the US department of justice had been “scathing” in a report it prepared on the issue.
He said in 2022, approximately a quarter of prisoners in Louisiana were overdetained, some by one or two months and others by more than a year. He said there were a “myriad” of reasons why this happened and it eventually resulted in the attorney general bringing proceedings against the Louisiana department of state corrections.
Navarro’s surrender to the United States is sought for the purpose of sentencing him on 11 counts in relation to the possession of pornography involving juveniles.
The 37-year-old had pleaded guilty to the offences on February 6th, 2018, in the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, Louisiana. He was legally represented by his attorney at that time.
After pleading guilty, Navarro was granted bail and his case was listed for sentencing in February 2018. However, he failed to appear on that date and a domestic arrest warrant was issued two months later.
The US issued an extradition request to the Irish authorities in December 2024 and Navarro was brought before the High Court on foot of a warrant for his arrest the following April.
His surrender, which had been opposed, was ordered by Judge Sean Gillane in July 2026. He found that Navarro had not established that a real risk of a violation of his fundamental human rights arises.
Appealing this decision on Tuesday, Lynam said the focus of the extradition proceedings had been overdetention in Louisiana, where he said prisoners were systematically being held for longer than they should have been as a result of “defects in the system”.
He contended that Gillane erred when assessing the risk of a breach of his client’s rights if surrendered. Counsel argued the judge was wrong to disregard evidence of overdetention in Louisiana on the basis that a specific assurance had been given that Navarro would not be held beyond his lawful release date.
He said in accepting the assurances given by the requesting state, the court failed to recognise that this must still be weighted against any specific, up-to-date information that Navarro faces a real risk of breach of rights.
The barrister pointed to an expert report from Prof Andrea C Armstrong, a professor of law at Loyola University, New Orleans, which highlighted several ongoing cases aimed at preventing prisoners from being overdetained. Counsel said there was also a class-action lawsuit in Louisiana challenging this, which he said remains a “live issue”.
In response, Ronan Kennedy, for the Attorney General, said the judge hadn’t simply accepted the assurance provided but rather had engaged in a “detailed, factual analysis”. He said the judge carried out a rigorous examination of all the material and information before him in accordance with the law.
Kennedy submitted that the preponderance of the evidence before the High Court related to historic issues of overdetention in the requesting state, which predated numerous reforms implemented by the Louisiana department of public safety and corrections.
Kennedy said the height of Navarro’s case was that there was “no evidence of the reforms”. However, counsel said that while this wasn’t “publicly available”, information about the reforms – including those introduced in February 2026 – had been provided to the court and that information hadn’t been challenged by Navarro.
He said the High Court made a finding of fact, which was open to it to make, that Navarro had not established a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or would be unlawfully deprived of his liberty if surrendered.
He asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
Judge Patrick McCarthy, sitting with Judge Alexander Owens and Judge Paul Burns, said the court would reserve judgment.