The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to seek further information from Polish authorities before the appeal of a surrender order can proceed. It retained the appeal, leaving the legal issues open.
The appeal concerns a European arrest warrant issued by Poland in January 2019 for an offence in July 1999. The High Court had ordered the appellant’s surrender to serve a 10-month sentence imposed in 2002 and initially suspended for three years. The Supreme Court did not decide whether surrender should take place.
The judgment describes an earlier Polish warrant, issued in 2012, concerning a separate offence in March 2003. Ireland’s Court of Appeal refused surrender on that warrant in May 2015 under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Supreme Court said it was unclear whether the 2003 offence led to the 2002 suspended sentence being activated in January 2006, and whether the relevant proceedings took place in the appellant’s absence.
The appellant argued that the 2019 warrant, issued years after the earlier surrender request failed, could amount to an abuse of process. He also contended that in-absentia protections might apply if a conviction for another offence triggered activation of the suspended sentence. The Minister’s primary submission was that the law on in-absentia proceedings did not cover the later activation of a suspended sentence. The Minister accepted that further facts could matter if that legal argument did not succeed.
The Supreme Court said the High Court may seek additional information under section 20 of the 2003 Act, which allows it to request material from the issuing judicial authority when the available information is insufficient. It said the High Court should ask whether the 1999 sentence was activated because of the 2003 offence, when and why that occurred, and why there were hearings concerning the 2003 offence in June 2003 and January 2004.
The court also identified questions about the appellant’s presence, notice and representation at those hearings and at the January 2006 proceedings. It asked why Poland waited until after Ireland refused surrender on the 2003 offence to seek surrender on the 1999 offence. The High Court may seek other information and make further factual findings it considers appropriate. The Supreme Court said those findings could help it decide the appeal, including whether a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union may be needed.