The High Court has ruled that B. H. is able to engage with proceedings under a European Arrest Warrant seeking his return to Poland to serve two custodial sentences. The ruling resolves a question about his capacity to participate; it does not decide whether he will be surrendered.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 30 July 2014. The court found that B. H. could understand the proceedings, make judgments where required, comprehend advice and give appropriate instructions. It concluded that the case must proceed.
The warrant, dated 10 March 2009, seeks execution of sentences imposed by a court in Koszalin in June and July 2003: two years’ imprisonment for a deception offence and one year for a composite sentence covering theft and forgery offences. The judgment said one year, eight months and eight days remained on the first sentence, and the full year on the second.
B. H. was arrested in Ireland on 14 March 2013. His objections to surrender included claims about the warrant, the fairness of proceedings in Poland, delay, family life and the effect of surrender on his medical treatment. A surrender hearing was due to take place in November 2013 when his solicitor raised concern about his fitness to participate, prompting an adjournment and psychiatric assessments.
The court heard opposing views from treating psychiatrist Dr Leader and Professor Harry Kennedy, who was asked to assess B. H. for the court. Dr Leader considered him unfit, saying psychotic symptoms and delusions affected his judgment and ability to act in his own interests. Professor Kennedy considered him capable of understanding the process and instructing his lawyers. Both experts gave evidence and were cross-examined on 1 July 2014.
The judge preferred Professor Kennedy’s evidence. The judgment said the possibility of cannabis intoxication had not been excluded as an explanation for symptoms observed by Dr Leader, and that evidence about whether B. H. benefited from prescribed medication was inconclusive. The court also noted that concerns about capacity had been raised late, after detailed objections and an affidavit had been prepared on his instructions. It said the evidence did not establish deliberate feigning.
The court’s ruling was limited to B. H.’s ability to engage with the surrender proceedings. It found that he had that ability and directed that the case proceed; the judgment did not determine the outstanding objections or make a surrender order.