The High Court has consented to the further prosecution in the Netherlands of a man already surrendered there, for two offences not covered by the European Arrest Warrant on which he was originally surrendered.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2011, Mr Justice Edwards ruled that the Dutch authorities’ documents amounted to a valid request for consent under section 22(7) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court approved prosecution for theft by two or more people involving burglary or breaking and entering, and for using or holding a fabricated or falsified travel document.
The respondent had been surrendered to the Netherlands on 12 November 2010, following a High Court order made on 3 November. The later request, dated 30 December 2010, was contained in a letter from the Dutch prosecutor and a document titled “Additional European Arrest Warrant”. The judge said the documents had to be read together. Despite the document’s title and some of its wording, it was a request for consent to further prosecution, not a warrant seeking the respondent’s arrest or transfer.
The court heard that the travel-document allegation concerned use of a Polish passport in the name of Tomasz Trepiak between November 2009 and June 2010. The burglary-related theft allegation concerned jewellery taken from a store in Geldrop on 26 October 2007. The judgment recounts these as allegations in the Dutch request; it makes no finding that the respondent committed either offence.
The respondent argued that consent should be refused, including because the request gave no explanation for why the offences were absent from the original warrant. His counsel also argued that the request lacked details of a domestic arrest warrant or equivalent decision. The Minister’s counsel submitted that the court’s role was limited to deciding whether the offences were ones for which surrender could be refused under the relevant Irish legislation or European rules.
Justice Edwards accepted the Minister’s submissions. He held that no underlying domestic arrest warrant was required for a request to consent to further prosecution, and that the court did not need to examine why the additional allegations were not included earlier. The court was satisfied that the offences met the requirements for surrender and were not barred by the statutory or Framework Decision grounds for refusal.
The order is limited to consent for prosecution in the Netherlands on the two specified offences. It does not decide the allegations’ merits or record the outcome of any prosecution.