The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections that the warrant sought him only for investigation and that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life.
The ruling by Ms Justice Murphy concerned a prosecution warrant for four alleged offences: participation in a criminal organisation and three fraud offences. The alleged frauds were said to have occurred between November 2005 and July 2006. The judgment later refers to offences spanning November 2005 to March 2007. The allegations were not findings of guilt.
The respondent argued that surrender was prohibited under section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act because Poland had not decided to charge and try him. Polish authorities initially described the case as being at the investigation stage. In later correspondence, they said a decision to present charges had been made in 2009, there was sufficient evidence to file an indictment, and the remaining steps included informing and interviewing him under Polish procedure.
Justice Murphy found that, taken as a whole, the correspondence showed an intention to try him dating from September 15, 2009, when charges were presented and a Polish court ordered his pre-trial detention. The statutory presumption that a decision to charge and try had been made had not been rebutted. The court said the intended prosecution remained subject to an interview required by Polish law.
The respondent also relied on his life in Ireland, where he said he had lived since 2006, his relationship, family responsibilities and employment, as well as delays in the proceedings. The court accepted the Polish authorities’ explanation that the investigation involved multiple suspects and that they had been unable to locate him in Poland. It found no delay that materially weakened the public interest in prosecution and concluded that surrender would not disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights.
The court also rejected an objection that the warrant failed to identify the offences clearly. It found that the four alleged offences and the purpose of the warrant were clear after the Polish authorities clarified that it was a prosecution warrant, not a sentence warrant.
Having found the requirements for surrender met and no bar to surrender established, the High Court ordered that the respondent be surrendered to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him.