The High Court has ordered Michael Kubalek’s surrender to the Czech Republic for offences of theft and causing damage to another person’s property, but not for failing to pay child maintenance or failing to begin serving a prison sentence.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 5 December 2019 in an application by the Minister for Justice and Equality under a European Arrest Warrant issued in 2016. The warrant sought Kubalek’s surrender to serve an aggregate sentence imposed for four offences. It described nine incidents involving alleged break-ins, damage and theft, as well as the two other offences.
The court found that theft and property damage corresponded to offences in Irish law. It accepted that the warrant’s account of the nine incidents could be treated as grouped offences under Czech law, and said that this did not prevent surrender.
The court found no Irish offence corresponding to failing to pay child maintenance. It also rejected the Minister’s proposed correspondence for the obstruction offence. That offence concerned failing to report to prison after receiving a court warrant to begin serving a sentence. The Irish offence cited by the respondent’s counsel concerned failure to appear in court while criminal proceedings were ongoing, which the judge found materially different.
Because the Czech sentence covered all four offences, the court considered whether surrender for only two was possible. The issuing authority had said a reduction of up to three months could be considered if Kubalek was surrendered for the other offences, but the judge said the actual reduction would be determined by a Czech court under Czech legislation.
The judge concluded that the sentence issue did not bar the limited surrender. He noted that Kubalek could apply in the Czech Republic for a proportionate reduction reflecting the offences for which he was not surrendered. The warrant also provided that, because he had not been present at trial, he would be served with the decision and could appeal, including seeking a retrial on the merits for the offences covered by surrender.
The order was therefore limited to theft and property damage. It did not authorize surrender for the child maintenance or obstruction offences.