The High Court ordered Maris Pavlovs’ surrender to Latvia for prosecution over an alleged drink-driving offence, after rejecting objections concerning delay, correspondence with Irish law and a possible earlier suspended sentence.
In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the surrender requirements under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, had been met. The court was satisfied Pavlovs was the person named in the warrant and that no issue arose under the statutory provisions concerning trials or sentences in absentia.
The warrant, issued on 15 February 2007, sought Pavlovs’ surrender for prosecution over an alleged offence on 27 December 2003 under section 262 of Latvian criminal law: operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances. The judgment records an earlier alleged offence in September 2003, for which Pavlovs was fined. The court noted that the earlier offence could affect the penalty for the later one.
Pavlovs argued that the Latvian offence required a prior offence and therefore did not correspond to the Irish offence of drink-driving. The judge rejected that argument. Applying section 5 of the 2003 Act, he said the relevant question was whether the conduct would have been an offence in Ireland on the date the warrant was issued. A prior offence would affect penalty under Irish law, he found, and correspondence and the minimum-gravity requirement were satisfied.
The court also rejected the delay objection. The judge said there was no demonstrated prejudice and that the delay could not benefit Pavlovs in avoiding surrender.
A further objection concerned a Riga court decision dated 26 March 2002. An affidavit from Pavlovs’ solicitor said she had obtained a translated decision indicating that Pavlovs had received, among other things, a five-year suspended sentence for theft after pleading guilty. That sentence was not mentioned in the arrest warrant. The respondent argued that surrender should not be ordered because the sentence might be activated in Latvia.
The judge held that this was not a valid reason to refuse surrender. He said Latvian authorities could seek the High Court’s consent under section 22 if they later wished to require Pavlovs to serve a sentence for a different pre-surrender offence. The court relied on the statutory presumption that an issuing state would comply with the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision. The order was for surrender for prosecution on the offence in the warrant; the judgment did not decide whether the earlier suspended sentence would be activated.