The High Court has refused to order the surrender of Michal Jerzy Malecki to Poland, finding that his defence rights were not met during the proceedings that led to a prison sentence there.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2024, Mr Justice Patrick McGrath said the Minister for Justice had sought Mr Malecki’s surrender to serve a sentence of one year, one month and 28 days. The European Arrest Warrant was issued in August 2023. Mr Malecki had been in Irish custody during the relevant Polish trial and appeal proceedings.
The court found that Mr Malecki was acquitted in May 2018, after which the prosecution appealed. The acquittal was overturned and the case sent for retrial. Mr Malecki was convicted at the retrial in March 2021, and his appeal was dismissed in May 2022.
Polish authorities told the High Court that Mr Malecki’s lawyer, Filip Curlyo, represented him at the trial and appeal, and that notices had been sent to his address. But the court accepted evidence from Mr Curlyo that he had no contact with Mr Malecki after the acquittal and received no further instructions to act. Mr Curlyo said he continued representing him out of an ethical obligation arising from his earlier work on the case.
The judge found that Mr Malecki was unaware of the retrial and appeal dates, had not mandated Mr Curlyo to represent him in those proceedings, and was in custody in Ireland, a fact known to Polish authorities through a separate European Arrest Warrant. He said the case did not meet the statutory conditions for surrender following proceedings in the defendant’s absence. After considering the circumstances, the judge concluded that Mr Malecki’s defence rights had not been met.
The court separately rejected Mr Malecki’s objection that conditions in Polish prisons would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Polish authorities could not identify the prison where he would be held, but gave assurances about space, healthcare, hygiene, exercise and safety. The judge said the material before him did not establish a specific risk to Mr Malecki sufficient to displace the assurances.
The judgment also found that the acts described in the warrant could amount to assault or assault causing harm under Irish law, establishing correspondence between the alleged conduct and Irish offences. The court’s conclusion on that issue did not alter its decision on the defence-rights objection. The judgment records that the surrender application was refused on that ground.