The High Court ordered K.L.’s surrender to Poland under two European arrest warrants, but refused surrender under a third because the warrant concerned a conviction following a trial in absentia and no retrial undertaking was offered.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2013, Mr Justice Edwards considered three warrants issued by Poland. Two sought K.L.’s return for trial on fraud allegations; the third sought enforcement of an 18-month prison sentence imposed after a trial in her absence. K.L. did not consent to surrender.
The court found that the legal requirements for surrender were met on all three warrants, including the applicable threshold for the alleged offences. But it held that section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act applied to the third warrant. Although notice of the trial had been sent in a manner sufficient under Polish law, the authorities could not establish that K.L. had actually received it. Because Poland offered no written undertaking that she would receive a retrial or an opportunity for one, the court said it could not surrender her on that warrant.
K.L. also objected to surrender under section 37, arguing that delay, her family circumstances in Ireland and her health made surrender disproportionate. She said she had six children, several still minors, and that separation would harm them. The court considered affidavits, medical material and a psychologist’s report. It recognised the children’s interests as a primary consideration and accepted that they were settled in Ireland, while noting that the report described possible harms rather than outcomes shown to be probable.
The court rejected K.L.’s account that she had been unaware of proceedings when she left Poland in 2007. It found she had been charged in both trial warrants before leaving, had failed to answer summonses sent to addresses she had provided, and had fled to evade justice. It found no evidence of culpable prosecutorial delay that reduced the public interest in surrender.
The judgment also noted that K.L. and her partner had separated in March 2013. The court was assured that alternative care arrangements could be made for the children. Weighing the family’s interests against the public interest, it concluded that surrender under the two trial warrants would not breach their rights to respect for private and family life. It rejected the section 37 objection and made an order under section 16(1) for surrender on those warrants. The order did not extend to the third warrant.