The High Court said it was disposed to make orders surrendering Jan Petrášek to the Czech Republic on three European arrest warrants. Mr Justice Edwards gave judgment on 16 May 2012 after a section 16 hearing. The judgment’s conclusion states the court’s disposition to make the orders; it does not set out the orders themselves.
The warrants sought his return in three different circumstances: to serve a one-year sentence imposed in 2006; to serve a composite 18-month sentence for four offences; and to attend a hearing on whether a suspended 28-month sentence should be activated. The court considered them in that order, at the applicant’s request.
For the one-year sentence warrant, the court found that the conduct described corresponded to Irish assault offences and met the minimum-gravity threshold. The respondent argued that he had not been present when the suspension was lifted or at the trial for a further offence that contributed to that decision. The court rejected his objections under section 37, noting that he had filed no affidavit and that the warrant said he had been notified at the address he had provided. It also said a previous period of about a month in custody, for which he might not receive credit, did not make surrender disproportionate.
For the 18-month sentence warrant, the court found correspondence between the described conduct and Irish offences, including incitement to hatred or disorderly conduct, and accepted the issuing authority’s undertaking that he could seek cancellation of the conviction and a new trial in his presence. It treated his freedom-of-expression objection as abandoned because no specific submissions were made on it.
The third warrant sought his attendance at a hearing about the possible activation of a previously suspended sentence. The court found the warrant’s purpose clear when read alongside additional information from the Czech authorities. Although it identified ambiguities, it considered them non-substantial and not grounds to refuse surrender. It also rejected the argument that he faced a greater sentence than the 28 months already imposed.
The judgment records that the respondent opposed surrender under all three warrants. It does not report the execution of surrender or the outcome of the future Czech proceedings.