The High Court refused bail to a man facing surrender to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, finding a real and significant risk that he might abscond before the court decided whether to surrender him.
Mr Justice John Edwards gave the ruling on 10 February 2011. The application was for bail pending a hearing under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court’s decision addressed bail only; it did not decide whether the applicant would ultimately be surrendered.
The warrant sought the applicant’s return to serve the remaining portions of sentences imposed by a district court in Gdynia for three robbery offences and insulting a police officer. The judgment set out the remaining terms as three years for two robberies committed on 8 December 2004, one year, 10 months and 25 days for another robbery, and 10 months for insulting a police officer. It noted that the warrant did not make clear whether the three-year term covered both robberies or one, and said that detail could be clarified with the Polish issuing authority later.
The applicant’s solicitor said he had close family in Ireland, had worked here, had limited means and had no real ties to Poland. The applicant offered to live with his parents in Waterford, surrender his passport and identity card, report to a Garda station three days a week and provide a family surety. The State opposed bail on flight-risk grounds.
Two Garda witnesses gave evidence about the applicant’s arrest in August 2010 in connection with an alleged domestic robbery. They said he gave the name “Artur Kalinski” when arrested and during an initial interview, but later gave his name as Zieliński. No charge had yet been brought in that separate matter, and the court gave relatively little weight to hearsay evidence that he might have stayed at a Dublin hostel under a false name and used a false passport.
The judge said there was no presumption in favour of bail for a person already convicted and facing surrender to serve a sentence. The court had to assess whether there was a real and significant risk of absconding, then decide whether detention or release on conditions was appropriate. It was not necessary to find that absconding was likely.
The judge weighed factors supporting release, including the applicant’s family ties, previous grant of bail in domestic proceedings, willingness to surrender travel documents and lack of evidence of previous convictions. Against these, the court considered his convictions and outstanding prison terms, his departure from Poland before serving them, the State’s objection and his use of another name when arrested.
The court concluded that the risk could not be adequately addressed through restrictions or bail conditions and refused the application. The applicant remained in custody pending the section 16 hearing.