The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his arguments that delay and the impact on his family made surrender unlawful.
The warrant, issued in September 2016, seeks his return to serve the remaining one year, six months and 15 days of a two-and-a-half-year sentence. The sentence followed 12 offences involving fraud and forged documents, described in the judgment as obtaining goods under false pretences. The goods were valued at 214,740 Polish zloty.
The judgment records that the original sentence was reduced on appeal by the Circuit Court in Opole on 7 January 2005. The warrant named the District Court as the sentencing court, an inaccuracy the parties did not dispute. The High Court said it would not refuse surrender on its own motion over that error and did not consider a request for clarification necessary.
The man argued that surrender was barred by the time elapsed and would grossly interfere with his family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In an affidavit, he said he had lived in Ireland since February 2005, worked and later operated a renovation service. He said his wife and two daughters depended on him financially, and raised concerns about the effect of his absence on his daughters’ wellbeing. He also relied on the delay in issuing and executing the warrant.
The Minister argued that the man left Poland knowing of the sentence and that the evidence about financial hardship and his daughters’ health was incomplete. The Minister said the delay could not, by itself, prevent surrender.
The court considered the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in *Minister for Justice & Equality v Vestartas*, which held that an Article 8 objection must meet a high threshold and be supported by cogent evidence. The High Court found that the circumstances here were not truly exceptional. It said the evidence did not establish the kind of serious impact on the children found in *Minister for Justice and Equality v J.A.T. (No. 2)*, and that delay was the only factor from that case present here.
The judge also concluded that the delay could not justify refusal where, in the court’s view, the man had known he was wanted in Poland and could have surrendered himself there. The court rejected his objections and granted the Minister’s application. The judgment does not state that surrender had already taken place.