The High Court ordered Marek Ster’s surrender to the Czech Republic under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, after rejecting his objections. The order was made so he could serve a four-year-and-six-month sentence imposed there following convictions in his absence for grievous bodily injury and theft.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 24 January 2008. He said the warrant, issued on 3 July 2006, had been endorsed by the High Court on 22 September 2006. Ster was arrested on 14 November 2006. The application was brought under section 16 of the Act.
Ster argued that the written undertaking in the warrant did not adequately protect his right to a retrial because it did not guarantee a different judge. The court found that neither section 45 nor the relevant Framework Decision required a retrial before a different judge. It also rejected his submission that an alleged breach of specialty in another Czech case was enough to displace the statutory presumption that the issuing state would comply with its obligations.
The judgment records Ster’s account that he fled the Czech Republic after threats he attributed to men he described as members of the Russian Mafia. He said he had helped police, sought protection for his family, and feared he would be killed if returned. Information from the Czech judicial authority disputed aspects of that account and said the decision not to provide witness protection reflected his status as a complainant and aggrieved party. The judge said the evidence did not establish a real risk to Ster’s life or bodily integrity on surrender.
The court also rejected objections concerning delay, the possible sentence range, detention pending surrender, the fairness of a retrial, the Framework Decision’s constitutional status, and reciprocity. It declined to determine Ster’s claim that he was outside the Czech Republic when the offences were allegedly committed, saying it could not assess the merits of the prosecution and that he could raise his claimed innocence at retrial.
The court found that the requirements of section 16 had been met and ordered surrender. The judgment does not determine Ster’s guilt afresh or the outcome of any retrial.