The High Court has declined to ask Latvian authorities for further records about a man’s theft conviction, ruling that the information before it was sufficient to perform its functions under the European Arrest Warrant Act.
Mr Justice Edwards’s judgment, delivered on 16 May 2013, sets out the reasons for a ruling made on 7 May. The court said it was not of the required opinion that the material provided was insufficient, a condition for using its power under section 20(1) to request additional information. It therefore said it was neither entitled nor disposed to make the request.
The Minister for Justice and Equality is seeking the respondent’s surrender to Latvia under a European arrest warrant. The respondent asked the court to seek orders and reasons concerning appeals against his conviction, as well as Latvian prosecutors’ refusals in May 2011 to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence. His counsel argued that the material was needed to assess whether surrender would conflict with Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution.
An affidavit from the respondent’s Latvian lawyer, described in the judgment, raised concerns about the investigation and trial evidence. It said the conviction relied on a co-accused’s statement, which the co-accused later disputed, and that a witness subsequently gave a statement saying the respondent was not involved. The affidavit said Latvian courts did not accept that statement or call the witness. These were claims presented on the respondent’s behalf, not findings made in this ruling.
According to the affidavit, Riga District Court convicted the respondent on 27 July 2009 and sentenced him to two years in prison. Riga Regional Court varied the sentence to one year and nine months on 22 December 2010. The Latvian Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal on 14 April 2011, and prosecutors rejected requests to reopen the case in May 2011. The judgment also records that an application had been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights, but no interim relief had been sought there.
Mr Justice Edwards said the court was not deciding at this stage the merits of the respondent’s objection under section 37 to surrender. He noted that appeals and review procedures had been available and pursued, though unsuccessfully. The ruling addressed only whether to request further information under section 20(1); it did not determine the surrender objection.