The Supreme Court ruled that a person may be surrendered to another state on more than one European arrest warrant. But it ordered Jaroslav Piotr Gotszlik’s surrender only on the warrant that remained in force, after the Polish authorities withdrew the second warrant.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform appealed a High Court decision refusing surrender to Poland under two warrants. One related to allegations of sexual offences involving a 13-year-old in November 2005. The other sought execution of a 2003 custodial sentence for physical and mental cruelty to the respondent’s wife. These were descriptions in the warrants, not findings made in this appeal.
The High Court had concluded that section 22 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 required it to refuse surrender in the circumstances. It considered that interpreting the section to allow surrender on separate warrants would conflict with the statute’s wording.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether section 22 prevented surrender where offences were set out in separate warrants. It held that the section’s specialty rule protects a surrendered person from prosecution or punishment for a prior offence that was not covered by the surrender. Since both offences were specified in warrants seeking surrender, that concern did not arise. The court also said the statutory presumption that the issuing state would not pursue other offences had not been rebutted.
The court decided to hear the legal issue even though the second warrant had been withdrawn. It said the question affected other cases and that resolving it would avoid the delay and expense of a later appeal.
A translated Polish judicial decision dated 6 June 2008 said Gotszlik was no longer sought to serve the sentence relating to the assault case, and that the warrant should be reversed. The Supreme Court therefore said surrender could not be ordered on that warrant, and he could not be imprisoned on foot of that offence under it.
The court varied the High Court’s judgment on the legal point and ordered the respondent’s surrender on the first warrant. Its decision established that multiple warrants may support surrender; it did not order surrender on the withdrawn warrant.