The High Court ordered the surrender of NDRICIM QEMA to the United Kingdom for prosecution on five offences in a Trade and Cooperation Agreement Warrant, but refused surrender on a sixth offence after finding it covered by a prior Irish conviction.
Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo delivered the judgment on 13 November 2023. The warrant sought prosecution for alleged smuggling and fraud-type offences. The court ordered surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, for offences 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. It refused surrender for offence 5 under the same section.
The respondent objected that he had already been tried and convicted in Ireland for the same offences. He had pleaded guilty to six counts in Dublin Circuit Court and received a five-year prison sentence on 12 July 2022. The counts concerned false instruments and facilitating the entry into Ireland of people believed to be illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. A separate count alleging conspiracy to facilitate unlawful immigration into the UK was discontinued by nolle prosequi.
The High Court examined the indictment, Book of Evidence and sentencing transcript to determine what the earlier sentence covered. It found that the Irish case concerned specific people and documents, and that the sentence did not cover the conduct alleged in warrant offences 2, 3, 4 and 6. The court therefore found that surrender on those offences was not barred by section 41, which prevents surrender where a final judgment has been given in Ireland or another member state for an offence consisting in whole or in part of the same conduct.
The court reached a different conclusion on offence 5. It concerned possession or control of a false Slovakian identity card in the name Georg Oravec. The Irish indictment had also covered use and possession of a false Slovakian identity card in that name. Although the warrant offence referred to possession in the UK on 12 September 2019 and the Irish counts referred to possession in Ireland on 12 August 2019, the judge found the respondent had possessed the same card on a continuing basis. The court held that a final judgment had already been given for the same conduct, or for conduct forming part of offence 5, and refused surrender on that count.
The respondent’s separate objections under sections 5 and 38, and under section 37, were not pursued at the hearing. The court found no other statutory bar to surrender. The order permits prosecution in the UK on the five specified offences; it does not determine whether the respondent is guilty of them.