The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Poland to serve the remaining nine months and nine days of a prison sentence, finding that he was brought before the court “as soon as may be” after his arrest under a European arrest warrant.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 4 November 2010, concerned a Polish warrant issued on 23 November 2009 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 3 March 2010. The respondent had pleaded guilty to an offence involving forged Polish currency notes and attempts to forge further notes. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on 27 May 2008, and that sentence was upheld on appeal on 30 September 2008. The judge said the remaining term reflected time already spent in pre-trial custody. After his release following sentence, the respondent did not present himself to prison to serve the balance.
The respondent was arrested at Clondalkin Garda Station at about 8.15pm on Saturday, 26 June 2010, after attending to produce his driving licence. Garda Bambrick found the warrant on a computer record, arrested him and gave him a copy. The respondent remained in Garda custody until he appeared before the High Court at about 1pm on Monday, 28 June, when the court fixed a hearing date and remanded him on bail.
For the respondent, counsel argued that the delay breached section 13(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which requires an arrested person to be brought before the High Court “as soon as may be”. He submitted that the respondent should have been brought before a duty judge over the weekend. The Minister’s counsel argued that the phrase allowed reasonable latitude and that Garda Bambrick had made responsible efforts to secure an earlier hearing.
The judge distinguished the case from a UK decision in which an arrested person could have been brought before a court on the day of arrest but was not, because officials wrongly believed the court was not sitting. Here, the judge on duty, contacted through the duty registrar, indicated that the respondent should appear on Monday. The court therefore found there was no High Court sitting available earlier and that the Monday appearance met the statutory requirement. The judge said it would have been preferable if the Sunday duty judge had been available, since the respondent had spent at least an extra day in custody.
The judgment did not decide whether a breach of section 13(5), if established in a future case, would require surrender to be refused. The judge said that question would have to await a case where it arose. He nevertheless made the surrender order, finding no other statutory or Framework Decision bar to surrender.