The High Court has ordered Robert Szall’s surrender to Poland after finding that he left the country to evade a sentencing hearing in criminal proceedings there.
Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 3 June 2015 that the surrender met the requirements of section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The order followed a Supreme Court appeal that sent the case back to the High Court to decide whether Mr Szall had “fled” Poland within the meaning of the law then applicable to his case.
Polish authorities sought his surrender to serve a three-year prison sentence imposed by the Lublin District Court in September 2008 for six offences. The Irish High Court had initially refused surrender in February 2012 because it found that one offence did not correspond with an Irish offence and could not be severed from the composite sentence. The Supreme Court later found the required correspondence for that offence and remitted the case for the remaining question. The parties accepted that the statutory flight requirement applied to this case, despite its later removal from the legislation.
Mr Szall said he left Poland lawfully on 8 April 2008 after completing a separate prison sentence. He said he planned to join his family in Ireland and had not been told that his Polish proceedings would resume. Polish court information, however, said he had admitted the offences at a hearing on 13 February 2008, received and signed for notice of a further hearing set for 9 April, and was required to provide an address for service if he left Poland. He disputed receiving the summons.
The judge accepted the Polish judicial authority’s account that Mr Szall had been served with notice of the 9 April hearing. He found that Mr Szall’s failure to attend was deliberate. The judge also concluded that, even if the summons had not reached him, he had deliberately failed to meet his obligation to keep the prosecutor’s office informed of an address where he could be contacted. Although the judge accepted that Mr Szall’s personal motivation was to join his family, he found that he intended to avoid sentencing and had “fled” Poland to evade justice.
The ruling determines the remaining issue referred back by the Supreme Court and makes the surrender order. It does not report that the surrender had been carried out.