The High Court refused the Minister for Justice’s application for consent to enforce two Polish prison sentences against Ryszard Szlachikowski. Ms Justice Stack ruled that information supplied by Polish authorities did not establish that he had been told a decision could be made in his absence, as required by EU law.
The sentences, imposed by the District Court in Sosnowiec in 2009, were six months and one year. The application was made under section 22(7) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and Article 27.4 of the EU Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrants.
Szlachikowski had already consented to surrender to Poland in relation to 77 fraud offences. He was surrendered on 27 October 2021. The present application concerned consent to proceedings to enforce the two earlier sentences.
The respondent initially objected on several grounds, including whether the alleged conduct corresponded to offences in Ireland, compliance with section 45 of the 2003 Act, and whether the delay amounted to an abuse of process. In an earlier ruling on 27 January 2023, the judge said she was satisfied that correspondence could be shown and that there was no evidence of abuse. She sought further information about the trials, which had taken place in the respondent’s absence. The judge also noted that the Supreme Court had rejected a separate legal argument in Minister for Justice v Kairys.
The Polish information said hearing notices and the judgments had been sent to an address the respondent gave during preparatory proceedings, and that advice notes were issued but not collected. It also said he had been told that post sent to that address would be treated as delivered if he moved without giving a new address. The judge found this information sufficient to establish, for one part of the applicable EU safeguard, that he had knowingly waived his right to attend. She noted that the respondent had an opportunity to challenge the account but had not disputed the address or said he lived elsewhere at the relevant times.
However, the safeguard also required information that he had been told a decision could be handed down if he did not attend. The material supplied said he had been told letters would be deemed delivered, but did not establish that he had been warned of that consequence. The judge said this information was necessary to show a waiver consistent with fair-trial rights. Despite two requests for additional information, the required confirmation was not provided.
The court therefore refused consent. The ruling addressed only the request to enforce these two sentences; it did not reverse the earlier surrender to Poland.