The High Court has ordered the surrender of Przemyslaw Marek Laniecki to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, rejecting objections based on limitation, delay and his absence from trial.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2024, Mr Justice Patrick McGrath said the warrant sought enforcement of a one-year prison sentence imposed by a Polish court in 2003. The underlying conviction concerned an alleged 2001 fraud involving a forged employment certificate used to obtain a Nokia 3310 mobile phone. The judgment records damage of PLN 1,404.66.
Mr Laniecki argued that enforcement of the sentence was time-barred. The Polish issuing authority told the Irish court that it was not barred and that the enforcement period would expire on 14 October 2028. Mr Laniecki relied on his own reading of Polish criminal law, but had not provided affidavit or expert evidence on the issue. The judge said there was no cogent evidence giving the court a real cause for concern about Poland’s confirmation, and dismissed the objection.
The judge accepted there had been a very significant delay by Polish authorities. They said the sentence had initially been conditionally suspended, was activated in 2006 after Mr Laniecki failed to meet a condition to redress the damage, and that he did not report to serve it. They also said a search was ordered and that an EAW issued after police obtained information about his whereabouts in April 2021. The authority further said he had been aware of the judgment and had failed to notify police of changes of address.
Mr Justice McGrath said the delay, although lengthy, was not accompanied by other circumstances or consequences that would support refusal of surrender or an abuse of process. He noted that the respondent had not established an Article 8 rights breach or comparable exceptional circumstances.
On the trial in absentia objection, Mr Laniecki said he was not told the trial date and was in detention around that time. The Polish authority said he had been personally summoned on 6 October 2003, notified of the trial’s date and place, and warned that judgment could be given in his absence. The judge concluded that his failure to attend amounted to an unequivocal waiver of his right to appear and that his defence rights were sufficiently protected. The judgment said his detention after the trial date was irrelevant to that issue.
The court found none of the objections made out and said it would make an order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The judgment records that proposed order; it does not set out a separate completed surrender date.