Judgment: 2021-10-11 · Court archive

High Court orders Robert Gabco surrendered to Slovakia over linked shoplifting sentences

High Court · [2021] IEHC 670

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Robert Gabco (Respondent)
  • Judge Beata Sutakova
What

High Court orders Robert Gabco surrendered to Slovakia over linked shoplifting sentences

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Presov
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The procedure was unusual because Gabco had first received a six-month prison sentence for the July shoplifting offence. Presov District Court later treated the July and November incidents as one continuing theft offence and imposed an eight-month sentence. Under the Slovak procedure explained to the High Court, the earlier conviction and six-month sentence would be formally set aside if the later eight-month order became final.

The High Court has ordered Robert Gabco to be surrendered to Slovakia under two European arrest warrants arising from linked shoplifting cases.

Both warrants were issued by Judge Beata Sutakova of Presov District Court in February 2021. One concerned two shoplifting incidents, on 22 July and 22 November 2019. The other concerned only the July incident.

The procedure was unusual because Gabco had first received a six-month prison sentence for the July shoplifting offence. Presov District Court later treated the July and November incidents as one continuing theft offence and imposed an eight-month sentence. Under the Slovak procedure explained to the High Court, the earlier conviction and six-month sentence would be formally set aside if the later eight-month order became final.

The first warrant was described as seeking prosecution, although Mr Justice Paul Burns found that in substance it sought surrender so the eight-month sentence could be imposed or enforced. The second sought enforcement of the earlier six-month sentence, which Slovak authorities said had to remain part of the surrender process so it could ultimately be nullified.

Gabco challenged the arrangement, including whether the requirements governing decisions made in a person's absence had been satisfied.

The High Court found that the earlier six-month penal order had been personally delivered to Gabco. He had been told of his right to challenge it within eight days but did not do so. As to the later eight-month order, the court accepted that, if surrendered, he would still be entitled to appeal it.

The judge was also satisfied that there was no risk of Gabco serving two separate sentences for the same July incident. If the eight-month order became operative, the earlier six-month sentence would be annulled.

Finding that Gabco's defence rights had been and would continue to be respected, the court dismissed his objections and ordered surrender on both warrants.

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