Judgment: 2021-03-19 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender to Latvia after dismissing objection over trial absence

The court ordered surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act, finding the respondent would have a right to appeal in Latvia. A separate postponement application remains to be heard.

High Court · [2021] IEHC 207

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jevgeņijs Plinta (Respondent)
  • Paul Burns (Judge)
What

The court ordered surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act, finding the respondent would have a right to appeal in Latvia. A separate postponement application remains to be heard.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Latvia
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 16 October 2019

    In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns said the Latvian warrant sought his surrender to serve a 10-month prison sentence imposed on 16 October 2019, with nine months and 12 days remaining. The court said the sentence met the statutory minimum gravity threshold and that the alleged offence corresponded to theft and/or burglary under Irish law. Correspondence was not contested at the hearing.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court ordered the surrender of Jevgeņijs Plinta to Latvia under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, dismissing his objection that surrender was barred because he had not appeared at the trial that led to his sentence.

The High Court ordered the surrender of Jevgeņijs Plinta to Latvia under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, dismissing his objection that surrender was barred because he had not appeared at the trial that led to his sentence.

In a judgment delivered on 19 March 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns said the Latvian warrant sought his surrender to serve a 10-month prison sentence imposed on 16 October 2019, with nine months and 12 days remaining. The court said the sentence met the statutory minimum gravity threshold and that the alleged offence corresponded to theft and/or burglary under Irish law. Correspondence was not contested at the hearing.

The respondent argued that section 45 of the Act prevented surrender because he had not attended his trial. The warrant stated that, after surrender, he would be served with the decision and informed of a right to seek a retrial or appeal within 30 days. His counsel submitted there was ambiguity over whether he would have a right to an appeal or only a right to request one that could be refused.

The issuing Latvian authority provided further information. It said that if Plinta lodged an appeal complaint after surrender, he would have defendant status and rights including the right to appeal, and enforcement of the sentence would be suspended pending review by a higher court. A report from a Latvian lawyer obtained by the respondent confirmed he would be entitled to a full appeal.

Justice Burns was satisfied that the documents established a right to appeal and that the requirements of section 45 and the relevant EU Framework Decision had been met. He dismissed that objection. He also found the respondent’s personal circumstances were not truly exceptional enough to justify refusing surrender under section 37.

The court said it would make an order under section 16(1) for surrender to Latvia. The respondent had also asked for surrender to be postponed to make arrangements for his two children. The judge stated that this application would be heard separately; the judgment did not decide it.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review