The High Court has ordered Krzysztof Haniszewski surrendered to Poland to serve a two-year-and-six-month prison sentence, rejecting his objections to the European arrest warrant and surrender request.
In a judgment delivered on 24 January 2014, Mr Justice Edwards directed surrender under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant sought Haniszewski’s surrender to serve a sentence imposed in 2005 for 29 offences involving the illegal supply of heroin for reward. The judgment records that the sentence was upheld on appeal in 2006.
Haniszewski opposed surrender on three grounds. He argued that the Minister for Justice and Equality had exceeded the Central Authority’s powers by asking the Polish court to amend the warrant; that the sentence was not immediately enforceable; and that he had not fled Poland, as required under the version of section 10 applicable to his case.
The court rejected the challenge to the Minister’s conduct. It held that the Central Authority could draw defects in a warrant to an issuing court’s attention and seek information or changes to address them, while the decision to endorse the warrant remained for the High Court. The judge said the Minister’s correspondence was somewhat peremptory in tone but did not exceed his authority. He added that even an excess of authority would not invalidate a warrant issued by a properly authorised judicial authority in the circumstances of this case.
On enforceability, the court considered information from the Polish court about Haniszewski’s post-appeal applications to postpone serving the sentence. It concluded those applications had been resolved or not pursued, and found the sentence had been immediately enforceable since 13 December 2007.
The court also rejected Haniszewski’s account that he had not fled. It considered his affidavit, including information about his hospitalisation, alongside the Polish court’s account of the proceedings. The judge found that Haniszewski knew the final postponement expired on 13 December 2007, and that he came to Ireland in October 2007 knowing he would then be expected to serve the sentence. The court concluded that he had left Poland to evade justice and was satisfied the statutory flight requirement was met.
The order concerns surrender under the warrant. The judgment does not state that surrender had taken place.