The High Court ruled that it could consider information received late from a Polish judicial authority and revisit an issue in an ongoing European Arrest Warrant proceeding. The judgment gives reasons for that ruling; it does not set out a new surrender order. The court had made the surrender order on 22 March 2011.
The warrant, issued by the Republic of Poland on 1 December 2009, sought the surrender of Rafal Gorka to serve the remaining portions of three prison sentences imposed in 2004. He did not consent to surrender. The sentences related to six offences in total.
At a hearing on 10 March 2011, the court indicated that it would uphold Gorka’s objection that two offences covered by Polish court file reference II K 757/04 did not correspond to offences in Irish law. It considered the other four offences to correspond and said the warrant otherwise met the requirements for surrender. Before making a formal order, however, the court adjourned the matter to clarify whether Gorka faced domestic criminal proceedings and whether the Minister would seek a postponement of surrender. The respondent remained on bail during the adjournment.
When the hearing resumed on 22 March, the court was told that the Minister would not seek postponement under section 18(3) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Minister then asked the court to reconsider its view on the two offences, relying on a fax containing additional information requested from the Regional Court in Tarnów, 2nd Criminal Division. The Irish Central Authority had sent the request on 11 March, and the reply arrived by fax later that day.
Gorka’s counsel opposed reopening the issue, arguing that the court should exercise its power sparingly after giving a clear ruling. He accepted that Gorka would suffer no specific prejudice if the issue were reconsidered, and acknowledged that the new information was likely to address the gaps identified by the court.
The judge concluded that the section 16 process was primarily an inquiry into whether the statutory requirements for surrender were met, rather than an adversarial contest. While the proceeding remained open and the court retained seisin of the case, it could consider further relevant information. The judge found no unfairness or potential injustice to either party in doing so, and held that the court was entitled, and it was appropriate, to receive and act on the additional information. The judgment does not specify the resulting assessment of correspondence for the two offences.