The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections based on the circumstances of his retrial and his claim that it was unfair.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 23 November 2011. The warrant sought the respondent to serve a composite sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment imposed by the Regional Court in Lubin on 26 November 2007. He did not consent to surrender.
The court found that the warrant and other statutory requirements for surrender were satisfied. It said the Polish sentence related to five offences. For two, the warrant’s “swindling” classification and the sentence length met the statutory threshold. For the other three, the court found corresponding offences under Irish law and found the minimum gravity requirements met.
The respondent argued that surrender was barred by section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 because he was tried and convicted in his absence, had not been notified of the relevant hearing, and Poland had given no undertaking that he would receive a retrial. He also argued under section 37 that surrender would breach his constitutional and Convention rights. He said he had not known about the November 2007 proceedings or the date judgment was announced, and that he lacked legal representation at the retrial.
The judgment records that the respondent had attended court on 22 October 2007. Further information from the Polish judicial authority said that the retrial was part-heard on that date and adjourned to 19 November for its conclusion. The respondent disputed that he had been told of the later dates.
The court interpreted “tried for and convicted” in section 45 as one cumulative process. It found that the respondent had not been tried and convicted wholly in his absence: he attended while the substantive trial was underway and, the court held, was notified in person of its resumption. It therefore ruled that section 45 did not apply. The court also relied on a presumption that Poland respected and would continue to respect fundamental rights, finding the respondent’s assertions insufficient to displace it.
On the section 37 objection, the court said it could not review the fairness of a trial already held in Poland as an appeal court. It considered that a complaint about the lack of legal representation should be pursued before the Polish courts. It found no evidence of the kind of fundamental defect in the requesting state’s justice system that could justify refusing surrender.
The court rejected the objections before it and ordered surrender to a person authorised by Poland to receive the respondent. The judgment states that other pleaded objections, including double jeopardy, were not pursued. It does not record execution of the surrender order.