The High Court has refused an application to surrender a man to Poland to serve a two-year prison sentence, finding that his defence rights were breached when the hearing imposing the sentence went ahead without him or his lawyer.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs ruled that surrender was prohibited under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act. The warrant sought his return to serve a cumulative sentence imposed in November 2006 for 20 offences, mostly involving fraud and driving.
The respondent said he had moved to Ireland in August 2006 and did not know the date of the Polish hearing. He said he had signed a voluntary submission to penalty after being advised that he would receive a suspended sentence, and had asked a lawyer to represent him. The Polish authorities said notices were sent to two addresses he had provided, but one was returned and the other was not collected. The court also had information that he had moved to Ireland without notifying the Polish authorities.
The lawyer had been mandated and paid to represent the respondent and had been notified of the hearing, but did not attend. In response to inquiries made by the respondent’s Irish solicitor, the lawyer said he could not explain his absence and had no records. The judge noted that the respondent’s account of expecting a suspended sentence raised credibility concerns, but said his account of mandating a lawyer was supported by the information provided.
The court found that the sentence had been determined by a Polish court and that the November 2006 hearing was a trial for the purposes of section 45. It concluded that the respondent had waived his right to attend, but had intended to participate through his lawyer. Because the lawyer did not attend and could give no reason, the respondent was not defended at the hearing. The court found a breach of his defence rights and said surrender was therefore prohibited.
The judge separately rejected the objection based on delay and Article 8 rights. The Polish authorities said the warrant was issued in 2011, updated in 2014 and focused on Ireland in 2020, after they learned he was living here. The court found no culpable delay by the Polish or Irish authorities. It acknowledged the respondent’s long residence in Ireland and his wife’s serious illness, but held that the circumstances did not go beyond the norm and had not rebutted the statutory presumption that Poland would comply with fundamental rights obligations.
The order refused the surrender application. The judgment does not determine the respondent’s guilt or sentence anew; it addresses whether surrender could lawfully proceed under the warrant.