The High Court has rejected Robert Pawel Ptak’s objections to surrender under two European arrest warrants issued by Poland, finding the statutory requirements met and that an order for surrender could be made under both warrants.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2017, Ms Justice Donnelly said the first warrant sought Mr Ptak for prosecution on 20 offences. The second sought him to serve two sentences, of one year and eight months and one year and six months, covering four offences. The court did not make a finding on whether he committed the alleged offences; it considered whether surrender was permitted under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The first warrant initially described the case as involving 18 offences, although 20 were itemised. After the High Court sought clarification under section 20, the Polish issuing authority said 18 was a translation error and confirmed that the request concerned 20 offences. The judge accepted the clarification.
Mr Ptak’s objections included a challenge to the description of one alleged offence as occurring between an “unestablished date” and 16 May 2011. The judge found the alleged participation in an organised group was described in sufficient detail, including its alleged activity involving fictitious car-sale advertisements on the OTOMOTO website. The unknown start date did not, in the circumstances, prevent surrender.
The court also rejected objections concerning the second warrant’s account of a trial in Mr Ptak’s absence. It accepted the warrant’s designation that he had been personally summoned to the trial on 12 July 2011 and informed that a decision could be made if he did not attend. The judge found that this was a clear assurance and that surrender was not prohibited under section 45.
Other objections addressed identity, the warrants’ offence descriptions and sentence information, and alleged risks under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge accepted evidence identifying Mr Ptak, including matching fingerprints. The prison-conditions objection was not pursued at the hearing, and the court said a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment had not been established. No affidavit or submissions were provided on the Article 8 objection, which the judge rejected without further analysis.
The court rejected all objections and said it was otherwise satisfied that section 16(1) had been met. It therefore could make an order for surrender to a person authorised by Poland to receive him under both warrants. The judgment records that the court could make the order; it does not state that surrender had already taken place.