The High Court has ordered Gheorghe Patriche’s surrender to the Czech Republic under a European arrest warrant seeking his prosecution for three alleged fraud-type offences involving ATM machines.
In a judgment delivered on 20 April 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed the respondent’s objection that he was not the person sought by the Czech authorities. He ordered surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The warrant was dated 10 September 2020 and issued by a judge of the District Court in Kladno. It sought surrender for prosecution. The respondent was arrested on 15 March 2021 following a Schengen Information System alert, appeared before the High Court the next day, and the warrant was produced to the court on 26 March.
The respondent said in an affidavit that he had only travelled through the Czech Republic and had not carried out the alleged thefts or frauds. He also said the warrant was not accompanied by a photograph, fingerprints or biometric information.
The judgment records evidence that, after his arrest, he accepted that the photograph accompanying the alert was of him. At a bail hearing, evidence was given about UK convictions under the name Adrian Craciun and an allegation that Craciun and Patriche were the same person. Patriche accepted having UK convictions and having lived at some locations associated with them, but said the convictions were under his own name. A Garda witness said UK police had reported no recorded offences under the name Gheorghe Patriche and that the photograph matched Craciun. Evidence was also given of a conviction in Ireland involving an attempt to remove a cash-trapping device from an ATM.
At the surrender hearing, Patriche’s side accepted that the name, date of birth and other identity details in the warrant matched him. The judge said the issue was whether he was the person named in the warrant, rather than whether he had committed the alleged offences. Applying the standard of proof identified in an earlier High Court case, the judge was satisfied that he was the person sought. The possibility of mistaken identity in relation to the alleged offences, he said, was a defence to raise in the issuing state.
The judge found that statutory bars to surrender did not arise and that the minimum gravity requirement was met. Each offence carried a stated maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment. He dismissed the objections and ordered surrender. The judgment does not determine whether Patriche committed the alleged offences.