The High Court has ordered the surrender of Miguel Alves de Sousa to Portugal under a European Arrest Warrant so he can serve a three-year prison sentence. The order was made under section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 after the court rejected his objection that the warrant did not clearly state the sentence imposed for two offences.
The warrant sought surrender to enforce a sentence imposed in 2015. It related to aggravated theft and driving without legal qualification. The High Court found that those offences correspond to burglary and driving without a driving licence under Irish law. The judgment says de Sousa was arrested in Ireland on 7 November 2021 and that the warrant was produced to the court on 16 November.
De Sousa disputed the warrant’s statement that he had attended the trial and sentencing. In response to court requests for information, the Portuguese issuing authority said he was present at both, and that his suspended sentence was later revoked after he failed to comply with a social reintegration plan. The authority said the plan included treatment for drug addiction, obtaining and maintaining work, and complying with judicial decisions. It reported that he stopped attending or contacting relevant services and did not respond to summonses. The High Court accepted that the sentence had been activated because of non-compliance, and said the Portuguese court had not increased or varied the original sentence.
The court also examined conflicting sentence details in the warrant. One section stated that three years remained to be served; another referred to two years for aggravated theft and 15 months for driving without legal qualification. The Portuguese authority said the difference arose from translation errors and explained that Portuguese law provides for a single sentence when a person is convicted of multiple offences. The High Court held that the warrant and additional information gave it enough detail to perform its statutory functions and allow the respondent to understand why surrender was sought. It dismissed the section 11 objection as without merit.
The judgment states that no other statutory ground precluded surrender and that the minimum sentence threshold was met. The court did not determine the underlying offences anew; it decided whether the statutory conditions for surrender under the warrant were satisfied.