The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Latvia for prosecution over alleged offences of robbery, hooliganism and misappropriation, rejecting his objections based on the treatment of previous convictions and delay in executing a European arrest warrant.
In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2006, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the alleged conduct corresponded generally to theft and assault causing harm under Irish law. He found the offences met the minimum gravity requirements for surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act and Framework Decision.
The respondent argued that references in the Latvian warrant to him having committed robbery before meant a prior conviction was an element of the charge. His barrister submitted that this would conflict with Irish fair-trial protections, including the general rule against evidence of previous convictions being introduced at a criminal trial except at the accused’s instigation.
The Minister’s barrister submitted that the prior conviction affected the potential penalty, rather than guilt or innocence. The judgment said the warrant described robbery as an offence under Latvian law, with a higher penalty where the person had a previous robbery conviction. The judge accepted that submission and said the respondent had not overcome the presumption that Latvia, as an EU member state, provides minimum fair-procedure and rights protections.
The respondent also objected that about 11 months passed between the European arrest warrant’s date, 21 September 2005, and his arrest in Ireland on 22 August 2006. He pointed to the earlier alleged offences and domestic arrest warrants, and said the delays had not been explained.
The judge found there was no evidence showing when the Central Authority received the European warrant. The respondent had not produced information about its receipt or shown that he had tried to obtain it. The court held that he had not established the delay ground.
The court also found no basis to refuse surrender under the statutory provisions considered in the judgment and said no undertaking was required under section 45. It ordered surrender to Latvia. The ruling concerned whether surrender should be made; it did not decide whether the respondent committed the alleged offences.