The High Court ordered the surrender of Jaroslaw Nowakowski to Poland to serve prison sentences imposed for offences listed in a European arrest warrant, but excluded two offences covered by a single two-year sentence because the court could not determine how much of that sentence related to an offence that had no Irish-law equivalent.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2008, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the warrant had issued in Poland on 24 October 2007 and was endorsed for execution in Ireland on 16 April 2008. Nowakowski was arrested on 21 May 2008. The warrant sought his surrender in connection with 12 offences across four case files.
The respondent’s objection focused on whether some offences corresponded to offences under Irish law. The court found that six theft offences described in the warrant corresponded to theft under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. It also found correspondence for forging a bus pass under section 25 of that Act, and for handling stolen goods under section 17.
The warrant described one further offence as hiding a driving licence. The judge found that the facts given did not correspond to any offence in Ireland. That offence and the handling offence were covered by one composite two-year sentence. Although the handling offence had an Irish-law equivalent, the court said it could not determine whether any part of the sentence related to the driving-licence offence. It therefore refused surrender in respect of both offences covered by that sentence.
The judgment also considered three drug-related offences. The court treated possession of marijuana in the respondent’s blood as an Article 2.2 offence carrying a Polish maximum penalty of three years, so double criminality did not have to be established for it. The judge found that two other allegations—sharing amphetamine without payment and selling ecstasy tablets—corresponded to the Irish offence of possessing a controlled drug for supply.
The court said no issue arose over the respondent’s identity or whether he had been notified of his trial. It also found no other statutory or Framework Decision ground requiring refusal. The surrender order was made subject to the exclusion for the two offences attracting the joint sentence.