The High Court has ordered Jaroslaw Sliwa’s surrender to Poland on five European arrest warrants seeking his prosecution for alleged fraud-related offences. Mr Justice Paul Burns ruled on 10 October 2022 that no provision of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 prevented surrender.
The judgment records that 13 warrants were initially before the court: six seeking surrender for prosecution and seven for enforcement of prison sentences. The sentence-enforcement warrants were later withdrawn after Poland imposed a single aggregate sentence. Several other warrants were also withdrawn. The five prosecution warrants that remained were considered individually, with the judge finding that the statutory requirements for surrender were met, subject to the common objections.
The remaining warrants concern alleged offences from 2011 to 2014. They include three alleged fraud-type offences in one warrant, 18 in another, and one offence each in three further warrants. The alleged conduct and involvement described in the warrants were not findings that Mr Sliwa committed the offences; the warrants seek his return to face prosecution.
Mr Sliwa argued that a previous period of temporary detention in Poland after his 2014 surrender, and proceedings concerning other matters, showed that Poland might breach the rule of specialty. The judge found the temporary detention was a genuine mistake that did not add to the time Mr Sliwa served on the matters covered by the earlier surrender. He held that the evidence did not rebut the statutory presumption that Poland would not restrict Mr Sliwa’s liberty over other offences without the required consent.
The court also rejected objections concerning detention conditions and fair-trial rights. Polish authorities could not identify the prison where Mr Sliwa might be held, but provided assurances about minimum personal space, medical care, safety, and access to food, water and exercise. The judge was not satisfied there were substantial grounds to believe surrender would expose him to a real risk of prohibited treatment. He also found the evidence did not establish a real risk that Mr Sliwa would be denied a fair trial.
An objection that the rule of law in Poland prevented surrender was not pursued after the court adjourned to await decisions from the Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment says an earlier ruling rejecting objections on that issue was incorporated into the decision. Having rejected the objections before him, the judge ordered Mr Sliwa’s surrender to Poland.