The High Court refused an application to surrender Slawomir Tomczak to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, finding that the offences described in the warrant did not correspond to offences under Irish law. Because the sentence was composite and could not be severed, the court said it had to refuse surrender.
The application sought Tomczak’s surrender to serve the remaining 209 days of a sentence imposed in 2009. The warrant concerned two offences in Torun on 27 September 2007: possession of intoxicants and riding a bicycle while intoxicated, contrary to a court prohibition on driving mechanical vehicles or bicycles.
Justice Caroline Biggs rejected Tomczak’s argument that surrender was barred because he had not appeared when the sentence was imposed. The issuing authority said he had given two addresses, had been instructed to report address changes, and did not provide a new address. The judge inferred that he had made an informed decision to avoid personal service and had waived notice of and attendance at the appeal hearing. She found his defence rights had not been breached and dismissed that objection.
The judge also rejected his objection based on delay, the relatively minor offences and his having lived openly in Ireland. She said those circumstances were not truly exceptional, there was no evidence of abuse of process, and surrender would not be incompatible with Ireland’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution.
On correspondence, the Minister argued that the cycling conduct matched an Irish offence of cycling while under the influence to the point of being unable to control the cycle, or being drunk in a public place while in charge of a carriage. The warrant recorded breath alcohol readings of 0.58 and 0.54 milligrams per litre. The judge said the readings alone did not establish impaired control or drunkenness. The court had no evidence about Tomczak’s behaviour, movements, reactions or physical and mental capacity at the time.
The court therefore found no corresponding Irish offence. It did not decide whether a pedal cycle could count as a carriage under the Licensing Act 1872, because it could not determine from the available evidence that Tomczak was drunk. The judge held that severance was not possible because the sentence was composite or aggregate, and refused surrender.