The High Court ordered the surrender of Tomás Országh to the Slovak Republic under two European arrest warrants, but refused surrender under a third, finding that the retrial undertaking for convictions in that warrant was insufficient.
In a judgment delivered on 8 March 2011, Mr Justice Michael Peart considered three warrants seeking surrender for separate offences. Under the first, Slovak authorities sought to enforce a 28-month sentence imposed in Országh’s absence for obtaining a loan using false information about his employment. The court found that the offence corresponded to making a gain by deception under Irish law. It accepted that the issuing authority’s undertaking met the statutory requirement to afford him an opportunity for a retrial.
The second warrant concerned two offences for which Országh had received a cumulative eight-month sentence, initially suspended for 18 months. The sentence was later activated after a breach of the suspension conditions. He had been present at the original trial and sentencing, though not at the later activation hearing. The judge rejected the submission that a further hearing or retrial undertaking was required for the activation decision. The offences corresponded to Irish road traffic and criminal damage offences.
The third warrant concerned two convictions for driving while disqualified, for which Országh had received a 10-month sentence in his absence. The judge found that the offences corresponded to driving without a licence under Irish law. However, the undertaking offered a retrial only subject to a time limit that, in the judge’s view, Országh could not meet. Because the undertaking was not clear and unequivocal, the court could not order surrender on that warrant.
The judge also considered whether Országh had “fled” Slovakia, an issue affecting the court’s jurisdiction under section 10 of the European Arrest Act 2003. Országh said he had moved to Ireland in June 2006 for economic reasons and denied knowing that the loan information was false. The judge rejected his account that police had told him he could continue driving until his licence was formally revoked, noting that he had produced no supporting evidence. The judge concluded that he must have anticipated that the suspended sentence would be activated and that he had fled to avoid serving it.
The court ordered surrender under the warrants dated 9 October 2008 and 29 January 2009. It refused surrender under the warrant dated 13 October 2008.