The High Court refused an order to surrender Jevgenijs Jurčenoks to Latvia, finding that the state seeking surrender had not established that he knew the date of the relevant court procedure or had waived his defence rights.
Mr Justice Paul Burns delivered the judgment on 30 October 2020. The Minister for Justice and Equality had sought surrender under a European Arrest Warrant dated 9 September 2018, to enforce a sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment. The sentence had initially been suspended for two years, then activated by a Latvian court decision in November 2016.
The warrant concerned a 2015 road traffic incident in which, according to its description, Mr Jurčenoks’s vehicle crossed onto the wrong side of the road and struck another vehicle, causing moderate injuries to one person and serious injuries to another. The High Court found that the described offence corresponded to careless or dangerous driving under Irish law. It also found the warrant contained the required details and that other statutory grounds raised against surrender did not apply.
The dispute that determined the application concerned the Latvian proceedings in the respondent’s absence. Information from the issuing authority said he had signed an agreement admitting guilt and proposing a suspended sentence, and that the case was then dealt with in writing. He had a right to object to the written procedure and to appeal. A notice giving the date of the procedure was posted to an address where he remained until 5 May 2016, but the issuing authority could establish only that it had been posted, not that it was received. Mr Jurčenoks said he had not received it and believed the process was over after signing the agreement.
The court said it was not satisfied that Mr Jurčenoks had unequivocally known the relevant date, or that his conduct showed he had waived his right to be informed. It was also not satisfied that he had shown such a lack of diligence that knowledge and waiver could be inferred. The judge noted that the agreement-based written procedure raised questions about how section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act applied, but concluded that the respondent’s defence rights had not been adequately protected or waived in this case.
The court therefore held that surrender was precluded by section 45 and refused the surrender order. It discharged the respondent. The judgment did not determine the other objections as grounds for refusing surrender; it found that the section 45 issue prevented the order.