The High Court has ordered the surrender of Maros Sulej and Tomas Puta to the Czech Republic under separate European arrest warrants, rejecting their objections to surrender and dismissing their plenary proceedings challenging the governing Irish law.
In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart dealt with both applications together. The warrants, dated 10 July 2006, seek the men in connection with alleged robbery and theft offences. The judge was satisfied that the conduct described would correspond to robbery and theft offences under Irish law, and that the statutory minimum gravity requirement was met. Neither man disputed his identity, and the judge was satisfied that each was the person named in his warrant.
The men argued that the warrants had not been duly issued under Czech law, including because Czech legislation had changed in 2006. The judge rejected that argument, saying the Irish court was entitled to presume that the warrants were issued in accordance with Czech law. He also rejected objections that imprisonment without bail while surrender arrangements were pending would be unconstitutional or disproportionate.
Both men raised concerns about alleged corruption, threats to their safety and publicity surrounding the cases. They also argued that they could not receive a fair trial because a Czech judge who attended an Irish mutual-assistance procedure might later sit on their trial. That judge had presided over cases involving two other people convicted in connection with the alleged offences. The High Court held that the evidence and submissions did not rebut the statutory presumption that the Czech Republic would respect their rights or that its judicial procedures met minimum standards of fairness. The court noted that the other two people had been tried separately and that the respondents would be entitled to have evidence presented again and to give their own evidence.
The judge also rejected objections concerning the rule of specialty and the possibility of prosecution for other offences, or extradition onward to a third country. He said the statutory safeguards requiring High Court consent, where applicable, meant those concerns did not prevent surrender. An objection based on a claimed lack of reciprocity between Irish and Czech law also failed.
The judge dismissed each man’s plenary proceedings arguing that the European Arrest Warrant Act was unconstitutional because of how the relevant EU Framework Decision had been approved. He concluded that surrender orders were required under section 16 of the Act and made an order for each man. The judgment does not establish that either man was surrendered or determine the underlying criminal charges.