The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Portugal under a European Arrest Warrant so he can serve a two-year-and-10-month prison sentence for aggravated theft.
In a judgment delivered on 2 March 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs made the surrender order under section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant sought enforcement of a sentence imposed in 2015 and suspended for the same period. Portuguese authorities later revoked the suspension after finding that the respondent had failed to comply with a social reintegration plan.
The respondent disputed that he had attended the original proceedings. In response to questions from the High Court, the Portuguese issuing authority said he was present at the trial on 23 March 2015 and when the sentence was read on 7 April 2015. It also confirmed there had been no change to the sentence before it became final on 7 May 2015.
The High Court sought further information about the revocation. Portugal said no hearing took place on 26 May 2017, when the suspension was revoked. A hearing had been scheduled for 3 March that year to hear the respondent about alleged non-compliance, but could not proceed because he could not be notified at the addresses he had provided. His defence lawyer was asked to comment on the possibility of revocation.
The Portuguese response said the reintegration plan required treatment for drug addiction, obtaining and keeping work, and compliance with judicial decisions. It reported that the respondent had experienced personal, family and professional instability, changed addresses, telephone contacts and employers, stopped contacting supervising services from July 2016, and had not attended specialist treatment consultations since December 2015. The plan had been sent to him by ordinary mail on 7 December 2015 at an address he had supplied.
Justice Biggs concluded that the respondent had attended the original trial and sentencing, and that the sentence was activated because he failed to meet the suspension conditions. She accepted that the court in Portugal had power to require the sentence to be served, but not to change or increase its length. She also found that the failure to notify him of the activation was his own fault because he had not met supervision obligations, including providing an address.
The High Court was satisfied that his rights under section 45 had been observed and that surrender was not barred by the 2003 Act. Its order was for surrender to Portugal; the judgment did not determine any further issue about the sentence’s enforcement there.