The High Court rejected two objections to surrendering P. N. to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, but the supplied judgment excerpt does not record whether the court ultimately made a surrender order.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2011, Mr Justice Edwards found that surrender would interfere with P. N.’s family life, but that the interference did not reach the exceptional level required to refuse surrender under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also rejected an objection that the warrant failed to specify the penalties imposed.
The Polish warrant, issued on 22 December 2009, sought P. N. to serve outstanding portions of sentences imposed between 2003 and 2004 for six offences, described in the judgment as thefts, attempted thefts, assaults and one threat to kill. The court found that the warrant met the relevant surrender requirements, subject to the two objections it considered.
P. N. argued that surrender would breach his family rights. In evidence, he said he had a young daughter, identified only as W, who is autistic and has special needs. He said he was involved in family-law proceedings concerning her and wanted contact to monitor her medical condition. Interim District Court orders had provided for weekly access, later increased to one hour and 45 minutes. The matter was adjourned to 12 September 2011.
The judge considered reports about W’s needs and her contact with her father. The Section 47 report described his involvement during access visits as positive, while recommending consistent attendance and further involvement in her education. The court found the evidence did not establish that a temporary interruption of contact would harm W more because of her autism, significantly disrupt her recommended programme, or make rebuilding the relationship significantly harder. It also noted that meaningful access would not be possible while P. N. was serving a prison sentence in Ireland. The judge concluded that P. N. had not shown sufficiently exceptional circumstances to make surrender a disproportionate interference with family life.
The second objection relied on P. N.’s assertion that the three sentences had been suspended. The judgment records that he supplied no supporting evidence or documents and did not explain the alleged suspension terms. The warrant stated that the sentences had become enforceable on three dates between 2003 and 2004. The court found that P. N. had not met the evidential threshold for looking behind the warrant and dismissed that objection.
The excerpt ends after the court’s ruling on the objections. It does not state whether the court then directed surrender or set out any further order.