The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants, rejecting his argument that an earlier breach of the rule of specialty made surrender an abuse of process.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 24 June 2019, concerned warrants seeking the remaining portions of prison sentences imposed in Poland. One sought four months and 26 days of a two-year-and-two-month sentence for theft. The other sought one year, four months and 29 days of an aggregate sentence for theft and drink driving.
The rule of specialty limits a requesting state from prosecuting or detaining a person for matters beyond those for which they were surrendered, unless specified conditions are met. The judge found that when the man was surrendered to Poland in 2010 for prosecution over theft of a mobile phone and wallet, he was kept in custody after that case’s preventive detention ended. He served 28 days of a 90-day substitute sentence for an unrelated drink-driving matter without the Irish High Court’s approval or his consent.
Polish authorities could not give a precise account of how the detention papers reached the prison. The relevant case files had been destroyed. However, contemporaneous correspondence showed that prison officials had raised concern about whether the sentence could lawfully be enforced, and the Polish court responsible for enforcement ordered the man’s release after the issue was brought to its attention. The court found no deliberate institutional intention to breach specialty and accepted assurances that he was not wanted for other matters and that the rule would be applied.
The judge said the explanation was incomplete, but found the lack of detail reflected missing records. She rejected the argument that the absence of an apology or expression of regret made surrender an abuse of process. She also found that the statutory presumption that Poland would comply with the rule had not been overturned.
The judgment noted that no assurance had been given that the 28 days would be credited against the sentences now to be served. It also considered delay and the man’s personal circumstances, including that he lived and worked in Ireland with his adult son. Those factors did not make surrender disproportionate or an abuse of process.
The court also found that the man had been personally served with a summons for the proceedings underlying one warrant, despite the trial taking place in his absence. It concluded surrender was not prohibited on that basis.
The judge rejected the abuse of process objection and found no statutory bar to surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. She said she could therefore make an order for surrender to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him.