The High Court certified two questions of law for a possible Supreme Court appeal in a European arrest warrant case involving Petronel Pal. It refused to certify two further questions concerning prison conditions and assurances from Romania.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the ruling on 20 April 2020. The application was made under section 16(11) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which permits an appeal only if the High Court certifies that a point of law is of exceptional public importance and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
The certified questions concern section 44 of the Act. They ask which facts should be reversed when assessing reciprocity under that section, and whether the issuing state's assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction on a similar basis to Ireland is relevant.
The respondent argued that the law remained uncertain after the Supreme Court’s decision in Minister for Justice v Bailey, particularly about how the reciprocity test should be applied and which circumstances should be reversed. The Minister submitted that Bailey had settled the issue and that no point of law arose.
The judge accepted that section 44 had been described as difficult to construe and that the questions could have consequences beyond this case for future surrender applications. Taking the broader approach applicable to certification applications under the Act, he found the first two questions met the statutory test and certified them.
The respondent also sought certification of questions about whether surrender is permissible where a specific risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been established but an assurance is not specific, and whether a court may infer assurance terms after a refusal to provide a more precise undertaking.
The judge refused those questions. He said the court’s earlier assessment had focused on the actual detention conditions and additional information obtained from the issuing authorities. The court had been satisfied that surrender would not expose the respondent to a real or substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The judgment said that, if convicted and sentenced, he would be held at Margineni Prison, and that any other prison to which he might be transferred would be Article 4 compliant under the assurances accepted by the court.
The ruling concerns certification of appeal questions only. It does not determine the proposed appeal or alter the underlying surrender decision.