The High Court has rejected three objections to the surrender of Zbigniew Jaworski to Poland, where he is sought for prosecution over two alleged offences. The court said it could make an order for his surrender to a person authorised by Poland to receive him; the judgment does not state that the order was made or that surrender has taken place.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 3 April 2017, records that Poland’s European arrest warrant concerns an alleged robbery and an alleged deprivation of liberty involving “special torment”. The court found that the facts alleged corresponded to offences under Irish law and that the minimum gravity requirement was met.
Jaworski argued that the warrant was unclear about the legal basis and possible sentence for the second allegation. A Polish lawyer’s report said the warrant cited a provision introduced after the alleged conduct in January 2005. In response to a request for clarification, the issuing judicial authority said deprivation of liberty with special torment was an offence at the time, and that the more lenient law must apply. The High Court held that the explanation removed any legally significant uncertainty. It said the Polish court would decide what acts were proved and which penalty applied. The objection under section 11 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 was rejected.
The court also rejected his claim that prison conditions in Poland created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. It considered evidence about cell space, overcrowding, medical care and detention conditions, including reports and lawyers’ affidavits. The Polish authorities said Jaworski would initially be held in Warsaw-Białołęka and then transferred to a detention ward in Białystok. The court found that the evidence did not establish a real risk to him in the indicated facility. It said a national standard of three square metres per prisoner did not, by itself, establish a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The section 37 objection on prison conditions was rejected.
On Article 8, the court considered that Jaworski had left Poland in 2005, later moved from London to Dublin, was divorced, and had two adult children living in Poland. It also noted that he was in custody awaiting sentence after pleading guilty to a separate Irish drug offence. The court found that the allegations concerned serious crimes of personal violence and that surrender would not be a disproportionate interference with his private rights. It rejected this objection as well.
Having rejected all three contested objections, the court concluded that it could make an order for surrender. The judgment does not record the subsequent making or execution of that order.