The High Court refused to surrender Mateusz Tejza to Poland in connection with a 2010 stadium disorder conviction, finding that the information provided did not show conduct meeting the individual requirements of corresponding offences under Irish law. It ordered his surrender for a separate robbery sentence, for which 1 year, 7 months and 2 days remained to be served.
Mr Justice Hunt delivered the judgment on 29 March 2019 after hearings under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Mr Tejza had objected to surrender. The court considered his objections concerning his presence at relevant proceedings, the description of the offences in the warrant, and whether the alleged conduct corresponded to offences under Irish law.
The Polish warrant concerned two convictions. In the first, a Polish court sentenced Mr Tejza to six months’ imprisonment, initially suspended, over an incident at a football match in Torun on 6 June 2010. In the second, it sentenced him to two years for robbery committed in June 2012. The High Court was satisfied that he had been present when both original sentences were imposed. It also found that his absence from later hearings about activation of the suspended sentence did not bar surrender on the stadium matter, as he had legal representation and the required information about those proceedings had been supplied.
The warrant initially appeared to describe more than one offence arising from the stadium incident. In response to a request for further information, the Polish authority said the conduct was treated as one offence under multiple provisions of Polish law. The judge found that this clarification removed the section 11 objection.
The court then examined whether the stadium conduct corresponded to offences suggested by the Minister, including violent disorder, affray, riot and threatening or abusive behaviour. Further information described supporters from two groups entering a buffer area, barriers being broken and supporters struggling for several minutes before police stopped the incident. The Polish authority said the proceedings had not established whether anyone was injured or property damaged. A bottle was mentioned in the available material, but it was not specifically attributed to Mr Tejza.
The judge said the information described Mr Tejza as part of a group and indicated that he may have obscured his face, but did not establish that he personally used or threatened violence or had the required intent or awareness. The court therefore found the facts insufficient to establish the necessary correspondence with any of the suggested Irish offences and refused surrender on the stadium matter.
The court found no bar to surrender on the robbery matter. It ordered Mr Tejza’s surrender to Poland to serve the remaining 1 year, 7 months and 2 days of that sentence.