The Supreme Court refused to execute a European Arrest Warrant seeking the surrender of Slawomir Wiktur Palonka to Poland over a 1999 cannabis importation offence, citing an unexplained 23-year delay and a confused sequence of warrant applications.
In a judgment delivered on 8 February 2022, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said he agreed with Mr Justice Charleton’s judgment that surrender should be refused. Hogan J said the case was exceptional under the principles recognised in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Aranyosi and Caldararu decision. He concluded that the court should refuse this EAW and make no surrender order.
Palonka was 18 when the 1999 offence was committed. A suspended sentence was imposed in August 2002 and activated by a Polish regional court in January 2006, after a separate 2003 cannabis importation conviction. Palonka had moved to Ireland in November 2005.
An EAW concerning the 2003 offence was issued in 2006. A later warrant for that offence was refused by the Irish Court of Appeal in May 2015 because it did not include information required by section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Palonka had been arrested in Ireland in December 2013 on foot of that 2012 warrant. Hogan J said the Polish court handling the 1999 sentence was unaware of the arrest until March 2018.
Police sought another warrant for the 1999 sentence in June 2018. A fresh EAW issued in January 2019, leading to the present proceedings. Hogan J described the Polish process as marked by delay and confusion, while accepting that a series of understandable human errors may have contributed. He said earlier action could have allowed a warrant to be pursued years sooner, or the two offences to be addressed together.
Hogan J considered the case marginal but said the combination of errors, repeated applications, choices and inordinate delay was not sufficiently excused. He also noted the offence was relatively minor and a first offence, and that Palonka had settled in Ireland with his family since 2005. His judgment records agreement with Charleton J; the source supplied is Hogan J’s judgment.