The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant seeking enforcement of a 22-month prison sentence. Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed the man’s objections and said the statutory requirements for surrender had been met.
The warrant sought his surrender to serve the sentence imposed by Warsaw’s District Court on 20 February 2015 for two offences: stealing a wallet in Warsaw in January 2007 and purchasing a stolen digital camera. The judgment says the warrant described the sentence as having been upheld on appeal by Warsaw’s Regional Court on 18 September 2015.
The respondent objected that the proceedings and delay breached his rights to liberty and fair procedures, and that surrender would interfere with his private and family life. He also argued surrender was barred under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which concerns trial in absentia.
The warrant initially contained incorrect information about his attendance at the appeal hearing. Additional information from Polish authorities said he had not attended that hearing, and neither had his lawyer, although the lawyer had been notified. The lawyer had represented him at the first-instance trial and appealed the conviction; the appeal was unsuccessful. The High Court concluded that the respondent had mandated his lawyer to act and that the section 45 requirements were met for the appeal. It said the additional information could clarify the error in the warrant and rejected the argument that a fresh warrant was required.
The respondent’s objections also drew on his account that he had lived and worked in Ireland since 2015, was in a long-term relationship, and helped care for his partner’s children. His partner’s affidavit described her health conditions and need for care. The judge found that the Polish authorities had given a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the personal circumstances described did not reach the high threshold required to refuse surrender.
The court dismissed the objections, found surrender was not prohibited under Part 3 of the 2003 Act, and said it would make an order under section 16 for surrender to Poland. The judgment does not state that the surrender had already taken place.