The High Court has ordered the surrender of Ivan Samko to the Czech Republic for prosecution on two offences, after finding that the European Arrest Warrant and further information from Czech authorities provided sufficient detail and that the alleged conduct corresponded to offences under Irish law.
Mr Justice Patrick McGrath made the order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 in a judgment delivered on 31 January 2025. The warrant was issued by a judge of the District Court in Prague. The judgment records that the offences carry maximum sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment and that the statutory minimum gravity requirement was met. The court also found that none of the bars to surrender under sections 22, 23 or 24 applied.
Samko’s objections concerned uncertainty about the number of offences and whether the second offence corresponded to an offence in Ireland. The court sought further information from the issuing judicial authority under section 20. In its reply, the authority confirmed that surrender was sought for two offences only, gave the periods alleged, and clarified the provisions of Czech law under which prosecution was sought. It also confirmed that the Article 2.2 Framework Decision classification applied to the first offence, but not the second.
The allegations described in the warrant were that Samko and a co-accused, also a prisoner, used a prison phone and authorised calls to arrange for narcotic and psychotropic drugs to be brought into a prison. It was alleged that Samko kept some drugs and sold or supplied the remainder to other prisoners. These are allegations set out in the warrant, not findings that the conduct occurred.
The first Czech offence was described as unauthorised production and other disposal of narcotic and psychotropic substances and poisons. The court held that the described conduct, including importing, selling, supplying and personally using illegal drugs in prison, corresponded to offences under sections 3 and 15 of Ireland’s Misuse of Drugs Acts.
The second offence was described as obstruction of justice and obstruction of a sentence of banishment. The court noted that the Czech authorities said both offences arose from the same alleged conduct. It held that the acts described could constitute several offences in Ireland, including offences under sections 3, 15 and 15C of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, which covers supplying controlled drugs into a prison or place of detention. The fact that Czech law categorised the conduct under two offences, one of a different nature, did not prevent correspondence being established.
The order permits surrender for prosecution for both offences. The judgment does not determine Samko’s guilt.