The High Court ordered the surrender of Darius Tomella to Poland, where he is sought for prosecution over an alleged unpaid cement purchase. The court decided that the European arrest warrant described conduct capable of meeting the dishonesty element of a corresponding Irish offence. It did not decide whether the alleged fraud occurred.
The warrant, dated 6 December 2007, alleged that on 28 October 2005 in Częstochowa, Tomella misled the owner of a company about his intention to pay for cement. It stated that the transaction caused the owner’s property to be disposed of to her disadvantage in the amount of 15,552.30 złoty. The judgment did not name the company.
Additional information from the Polish judicial authority said that Tomella did not pay for goods, did not respond to correspondence or calls, and was not found at his home or the firm’s registered office. The judge said he could decide the legal issue by reference to the warrant itself, without relying on that additional information.
Because the warrant did not classify the alleged offence as one covered by the European arrest warrant framework’s list of offences exempt from the correspondence test, the High Court had to consider whether the conduct described would amount to an offence in Ireland. The applicant argued it corresponded to making a gain or causing a loss by deception under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
For Tomella, counsel argued that the warrant described a civil debt rather than a crime. He submitted that “mislead” could describe innocent or unintentional conduct and did not necessarily establish dishonesty. The applicant accepted that the word could have an innocent meaning in some circumstances, but argued the context here supported a dishonest one.
The judge held that “mislead” was not a legal term of art and had to be read in context. The warrant said the cement had been purchased without payment; read alongside that fact, the word could carry the required element of dishonesty. The court therefore found correspondence with the Irish offence.
The judge was also satisfied that no other identified statutory or framework provisions prohibited surrender. He ordered surrender to the issuing state. The ruling resolved the surrender application; the Polish prosecution and the truth of the allegation remained for determination there.