The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland for prosecution over nine alleged offences, after rejecting his objections under the European Arrest Warrant Act.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2022, Mr Justice Paul Burns found that surrender was not precluded by the Act. The warrant was issued by a judge of the Circuit Court in Radom on 17 November 2020. The judgment records that the man was arrested in Ireland on 27 March 2021 and that the warrant was produced to the High Court four days later.
The man challenged whether two offences in the warrant corresponded to offences under Irish law. The court accepted that an allegation of intentionally setting fire to a third party’s car corresponded to criminal damage. It also found correspondence for an allegation that he insulted Polish police officers. The court relied on information that the alleged incident occurred on a public street after police asked a group to leave the roadway, and found the alleged conduct could amount to insulting words intended or reckless as to whether they might provoke a breach of the peace under Irish law. These were findings about correspondence for surrender purposes, not determinations of guilt.
The man also said his life would be at risk in Polish custody because of threats from a criminal organisation. The judge noted that he provided no independent or supporting evidence for that allegation beyond his own account. He also relied on reports about Polish prison conditions. Information supplied by the prosecutor’s office in Radom said he would most likely be detained there, receive at least three square metres of living space, be medically assessed and have a security risk assessed if authorities were alerted to a suspected threat.
The judge said the prosecutor’s information did not automatically carry the same weight as information from the issuing judicial authority, but gave it significant weight alongside the other evidence. He was not satisfied there were substantial reasons to believe surrender would expose the man to a real risk to his life or of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court also found the statutory presumption that Poland would comply with fundamental rights requirements had not been rebutted.
The man’s family circumstances, including his long-term relationship and young son, did not meet the threshold for refusing surrender, the judge said. A rule of law objection was not pursued after an earlier ruling rejecting objections on the points, and further adjournment to await later court decisions.
The order requires surrender to Poland. The judgment concerns the legality of surrender and does not decide the nine prosecution allegations.