The High Court found that a man sought by Poland to serve the unserved balance of a prison sentence had “fled” Poland, rejecting his objection to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 17 January 2014, says the warrant sought the man’s surrender to serve seven months and four days of a two-year sentence. The sentence related to three offences: assault, false imprisonment and threatening to kill. The court found that the warrant and arrest requirements were met, and that the offences corresponded to offences under Irish law.
The dispute concerned whether the respondent had fled Poland before completing his sentence. He said in an affidavit that he had kept in contact with his probation officer, told her he wanted to go abroad to find work, and understood she had agreed. He said he travelled to Ireland in September 2006, where he worked openly, and did not believe he was breaching his release conditions.
The Polish authorities gave a different account. They said the respondent was required to tell his probation officer before moving abroad, keep in regular contact and provide proof of his employment. According to their records, he told the officer he was in England, did not provide requested documents and stopped contacting the officer. His conditional early release was revoked in July 2007.
The judge identified discrepancies between those records and the respondent’s account. The records said he had described himself as working in London, including in a construction company, while his affidavit said he was working as a mechanic in Naas. The judge also noted that the records described him as saying his wife might join him, although his affidavit said she had joined him in Ireland in November 2006. The judge rejected the suggestion that “Dublin” may have been misheard as “London”.
The judgment also records that a Polish court bailiff was trying to locate the respondent in connection with substantial debts and property proceedings. A community interview in March 2007 found that he was living in Dublin, and records said he did not comply with a further request to contact his probation officer and provide documents confirming his location.
Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concluded it was reasonable to infer that the respondent had left Poland to evade justice. Although his subjective intention may have been to avoid civil authorities, including the bailiff, the judge found that by evading probation supervision he had placed himself beyond the reach of the criminal court.
The judgment addresses the “fled” objection and confirms that the other statutory requirements considered by the court were met. It does not record a final order directing surrender.