The High Court refused to surrender an anonymised respondent to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, finding that the unexplained delay in issuing the warrant and the likely impact on his young son made surrender disproportionate in the circumstances.
The warrant sought the respondent to serve a two-year prison sentence imposed in 2001 for robbery offences involving mobile phones taken from two minors. The sentence had been suspended, then activated after further offending. The Polish court said the respondent’s later offences made execution mandatory under Polish law.
The respondent opposed surrender, relying principally on delay and the effect on his family and private life. He told the court he had lived and worked openly in Ireland since 2006, had permission from his probation officer to leave Poland, and supported his eight-year-old son, who lived with the respondent’s former partner. He also raised mental health and employment concerns.
The Polish court’s replies described the respondent’s subsequent convictions and applications to postpone execution of the sentence. A clemency petition, lodged in April 2009, prevented steps to issue a European warrant until the President of Poland refused it in March 2012. The High Court found the 19-month gap between that refusal and the warrant’s issue in October 2013 unexplained and excessive on the facts. It said the respondent’s whereabouts were known and that his pursuit of remedies did not make him a fugitive.
The judge considered the public interest in enforcing the sentence to be moderately strong initially, given the seriousness of the original robbery offences. But the unexplained delay substantially diluted that interest. The court then weighed the respondent’s circumstances against the reduced public interest.
The judge said ordinary disruption to family life, medical concerns and possible job loss would not normally be enough to prevent surrender. The respondent’s son was the particular concern: although he did not live with his father, the respondent provided regular care and support. The court concluded that the likely loss of contact for two years, alongside the other circumstances, made surrender exceptionally disproportionate.
The High Court upheld the respondent’s objection under section 37(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and refused surrender. It made no surrender order. The judgment was delivered on 23 January 2015.