The High Court has requested further information from Polish authorities before deciding whether a man can be surrendered to Poland to serve the remainder of a robbery sentence. It did not make a surrender order under that warrant at this stage.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform sought surrender under two European arrest warrants. In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2010, Mr Justice Michael Peart dealt first with a warrant dated 17 March 2010. It sought the respondent’s surrender for prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol and to serve a six-month sentence for fraud.
The respondent raised no objection to that warrant. The judge found that the driving offence corresponded to an offence under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended, and that no retrial undertaking was required for the fraud conviction. Finding no statutory or other bar to surrender, he ordered surrender under the March 2010 warrant.
The second warrant, dated 6 February 2009, sought the respondent to serve the remaining nine months and 27 days of a one-year Polish sentence for robbery. The sentence had been imposed in his presence on 24 October 2007. The respondent argued that the warrant did not establish that he had “fled” Poland before serving the sentence, as required by section 10(d) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The Minister submitted that the respondent knew the sentence had to be served and that the court could infer he had left Poland to avoid it. The judge said the Minister first had to establish, from the warrant or further information provided by the issuing authority, that the respondent came within section 10(d). The respondent’s failure to file an affidavit did not shift that initial burden.
The warrant did not explain why only part of the sentence remained. The judge identified several possible explanations, including time in custody before sentencing, early release, or remission, and said the court could not safely infer flight without knowing the circumstances. He requested that the Central Authority seek information from the issuing judicial authority under section 20 of the 2003 Act. The court will consider any response and hear further submissions before deciding whether section 10(d) applies and whether surrender under the February 2009 warrant can be ordered.