The Court of Appeal dismissed Michal Bartold’s appeal against a High Court decision setting a new date for his surrender to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The appeal concerned whether the failure to transfer him on 3 December 2018 was foreseeable and therefore within the State’s control.
The High Court had ordered Bartold’s surrender on 9 November 2018. When the scheduled transfer failed, the State applied under section 16(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for an extension. The High Court fixed 12 December as the new surrender date, with detention permitted for up to 10 days after that date. Bartold appealed, seeking to have the surrender refused and his release ordered.
At the High Court hearing, Garda and prison witnesses gave evidence about the attempted transfer from Cloverhill Prison to Dublin Airport. Garda Eoin Kane said Bartold told him he had a medical condition and could not fly. At the airport, Kane said, Bartold became verbally abusive, shouted profanities and said he had a bomb. The captain of the commercial flight would not force him to board, and airport staff said he could not travel on the flight.
Bartold testified that he had deep vein thrombosis and took blood thinners twice daily. He said he had asked for his medication at the prison reception but was told it was not available and would be sorted out. Prison officer Thomas Hogg said the prison dispensary was open that morning and that in his 13 years of service he had never seen it closed at that time.
A prison doctor’s report, read to the High Court, said Bartold was medically fit to fly, noted his history of DVTs and lifelong prescription for dabigatran, and recommended that he be allowed to walk briefly every two hours during the flight. The High Court judge concluded that the failure to complete the transfer was unforeseeable. She found Bartold’s account largely unbelievable and considered that he had deliberately created a situation to prevent the flight.
On appeal, Bartold’s representatives argued that the authorities knew of his flight concerns and long-term medication, so his refusal and the failed transfer should have been anticipated. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said the medical report did not make fitness to fly conditional on taking medication immediately before boarding, and the authorities could not reasonably have been expected to foresee a breakdown in the prison medication arrangements followed by Bartold’s conduct at the airport.
The appeal court held that the High Court’s factual conclusions were open to it and that there was no basis to interfere. It dismissed the appeal. The result left the High Court’s renewed surrender order in place; the Court of Appeal did not itself make a new surrender order.