The High Court ordered the surrender of Kaspars Koncis to Latvia for prosecution on four offences, rejecting objections based on the new warrant, alleged abuse of process, constitutional rights, delay and the absence of a written retrial undertaking.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the warrant sought surrender for prosecution over four offences. He was satisfied that the conduct described would correspond in Ireland to robbery, theft and assault offences, and that the minimum gravity threshold was met. The respondent’s identity was not disputed.
The judgment recounts that two earlier Latvian warrants had been sent to Ireland. The second, issued in 2005, led to an order for surrender in November 2006. The respondent later learned that he had been convicted in his absence in Latvia on the same offences in November 2005. Latvian authorities subsequently advised that those convictions had been set aside because the court lacked a legal basis to decide the case in his absence. The respondent was released from custody in Ireland in February 2007 after an application under Article 40 of the Constitution. The second warrant was later cancelled, and Latvia issued the present, third warrant.
The respondent argued that he had not been informed about the steps to set aside the convictions or issue a fresh warrant, and that this affected the warrant’s validity and his fair procedures. The judge found no evidence that Latvian authorities acted unlawfully or in bad faith, and no substantiated prejudice from the lack of notice. He also rejected the abuse-of-process argument. The earlier period in custody arose from an order based on incorrect facts, the judge said, but it did not prohibit surrender; time spent in custody could be deducted from any sentence imposed after trial.
The court also rejected arguments that references to prior offending in three charges would prevent a fair trial, or that delay since the alleged 2004 offences prejudiced the defence. It accepted information from Latvia’s General Prosecutor’s office that the convictions had been set aside. Because no conviction remained in force and the new warrant was for trial in the respondent’s presence, the judge held that section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 did not require a written undertaking guaranteeing a retrial.
The judge declined to vacate the earlier orders concerning the second warrant, finding that the present application was a separate proceeding based on the third warrant. He made no order on the applicant’s motion to vacate those earlier orders, but ordered surrender on the current application.