The High Court has ordered the surrender of B.H. to Poland to serve a one-year prison sentence, after rejecting objections based on his mental health, the European Arrest Warrant and his private and family life. The order was made under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
The Polish warrant covered two sentences and five offences. The court ruled that the conduct described for four offences carrying a two-year sentence did not correspond to forgery or attempted forgery under Irish law. It said surrender must be refused in respect of that sentence under section 38, following the Supreme Court’s decision in *Minister for Justice and Equality v Ferenca*.
The remaining offence concerned stealing a car and forging a sale contract. The court found that the alleged conduct corresponded to theft under Irish law. It considered the sentence final and binding, and found that B.H. had been present at both his trial and the later hearing at which the suspended sentence was ordered to be served. The court therefore rejected the objection that the case involved a trial in absentia.
B.H. had been granted a six-month postponement of the sentence in Poland, from September 2011 to March 2012. The court accepted that the sentence was not enforceable there during that period, but found it enforceable when the warrant was endorsed, when B.H. was arrested in Ireland and at the section 16 hearing. It held that the postponement did not invalidate the warrant. The court also found that B.H. had left Poland knowing he had a sentence to serve and had “fled” within the meaning of the applicable law.
The court considered evidence from consultant psychiatrists about B.H.’s psychotic mental illness and his ability to understand the surrender proceedings and instruct his lawyers. It accepted Professor Brendan Kelly’s opinion that he was fit to participate. It found that concerns about a delusion involving a solicitor did not establish that he was unable to instruct legal representatives.
The court found no evidence establishing a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in a Polish prison. It also concluded that surrender would not disproportionately interfere with B.H.’s private and family life, weighing the public interest against his family, business and health circumstances. Other objections, including claims concerning delay and fair-trial rights, were rejected.
The order concerns the one-year sentence only. The court refused surrender in respect of the separate two-year sentence.