The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections concerning pre-trial detention and the independence and appointment of Polish judges.
Mr Justice Binchy made the order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant, issued by the Regional Court in Rzeszów, seeks the respondent’s surrender in connection with five alleged offences. The judgment sets out allegations involving access to an online auction account, transactions for cosmetics and supplements, threats to publish intimate images, and circulation of an image without consent. These are allegations in the warrant; the High Court was deciding whether surrender should take place, not whether the respondent committed the offences.
The respondent’s principal objection initially argued that he faced three months’ pre-trial detention in Poland without an entitlement to seek release. Information from the issuing authority and correspondence from his Polish lawyer showed that he could apply to vary or revoke the detention order. He had done so, but his application was unsuccessful.
The objection then focused on whether pre-trial detention in Poland was excessive and created a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The respondent relied on a 2009 European Court of Human Rights judgment concerning systemic problems in Polish detention and on his lawyer’s account of later cases. The High Court said those later decisions had not been provided to it. It found the material insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that Poland would comply with fundamental rights.
The respondent also argued that legislative changes in Poland threatened fair-trial rights and the right to a tribunal established by law. The High Court accepted that systemic concerns about judicial independence existed and that the new laws would apply to the courts dealing with the respondent’s case. But it said those general concerns did not, by themselves, justify refusing surrender: the evidence had to show a specific and substantial risk to this respondent.
The court found no evidence that the respondent would be tried by a judge appointed unlawfully, or that his personal circumstances, the alleged offences or the circumstances of the warrant created a specific fair-trial risk. It concluded that a mere possibility of an irregular appointment was not enough. All objections were rejected, and surrender was directed. The judgment does not determine the respondent’s guilt or the outcome of any Polish proceedings.