The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, after dismissing objections concerning delay, family rights and his absence from an appeal hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 24 October 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs ruled that surrender was not prohibited under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. She directed that an order be made under section 16 for the respondent’s surrender to Poland to serve the balance of a four-year prison sentence. The court’s opening summary says three years and four months remained to be served.
The warrant relates to a 2004 assault in Wałbrzych. The Polish account described repeated punches and kicks that caused serious injuries, including facial fractures, loss of consciousness and breathing difficulties. The High Court found that the alleged conduct corresponded to assault causing harm or, alternatively, causing serious harm under Irish law. The respondent denied committing the offence, according to the judgment.
The respondent argued that the renewed surrender request came after long delays and a previous warrant had been withdrawn in 2010. He also relied on his life in Ireland, including his partner, two children and employment, and challenged the warrant’s account of his attendance at court proceedings.
The court found that the first warrant had been withdrawn after the respondent applied through a lawyer to postpone serving his sentence. It considered subsequent postponement applications and related proceedings in Poland. The judge concluded that much of the delay from 2010 to 2016 resulted from those applications, and that the later period was not attributable to Polish or Irish authorities because they did not know his address and believed he might be in Germany. The court held that the delay was not so serious as to amount to an abuse of process, and that the respondent’s family circumstances did not meet the high threshold for refusing surrender under Article 8 rights.
On the absence issue, the court found that the respondent had attended his 2005 trial and was absent from the 2006 appeal hearing, where a substitute trainee lawyer represented him. The respondent disputed knowing about the appeal or authorising that representation. The judge rejected his account, finding that he had mandated a lawyer for the appeal and that the mandate continued through lawful substitutions. The court said the warrant’s original and later Part D information contained errors, but held that the additional material established what had occurred and that the errors did not bar surrender.
The ruling decides the surrender application under Irish law. It does not determine the respondent’s denial of the underlying offence anew.