The High Court refused to surrender AB to Hungary under the second of two European Arrest Warrants, after Hungarian authorities said they were seeking prosecution under a warrant endorsed in Ireland for enforcement of a sentence.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 19 May 2015, concerns only the second warrant, issued on 19 September 2012 and endorsed by the High Court on 4 June 2013. A separate first warrant was not at issue in the decision.
The second warrant referred to two Hungarian judgments. The first concerned a five-month sentence for failure to pay child support. The Minister for Justice and Equality’s counsel could identify no corresponding offence in Ireland, and the judge also found none. She said surrender had to be refused on that judgment.
The second judgment covered four offences: two instances of false imprisonment involving AB’s former spouse and son at their home, damage to his wife’s phone, and an assault on his wife that caused injuries. The warrant said AB had received a one-year prison sentence, with 11 months remaining after credit for pre-trial detention. The judge said the offences met the relevant correspondence and minimum-gravity requirements.
The purpose of the second warrant changed after a retrial was ordered in Hungary. In a letter dated 14 January 2015, the Hungarian central authority told the Irish central authority that enforcement of the sentence was no longer sought and that surrender was requested to conduct a criminal prosecution. The judge noted that the Hungarian court decision ordering review did not mention an arrest warrant for prosecution and that the investigation appeared to be ongoing.
The judge distinguished this from cases where an issuing state continued to rely on the same warrant for prosecution. Here, the warrant had been endorsed in Ireland as one seeking execution of a custodial sentence. After the retrial order, AB was no longer sentenced in respect of the offences covered by that judgment and was instead an accused person.
The court held that prosecution and sentence enforcement are distinct purposes under the European Arrest Warrant system. The warrant had not been endorsed for prosecution, as required for a surrender order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The judge also rejected the Minister’s submission that a statutory provision on defects and technical failures could cure the change, which she considered fundamental rather than technical.
The court did not seek further information about a domestic arrest warrant, finding it unnecessary to the decision. It refused to make a section 16 surrender order on the second warrant. The ruling did not determine the outcome of any prosecution in Hungary.