The High Court has refused to order the surrender of a man to Poland to serve the remainder of a three-year sentence, finding that the circumstances of his trial in absentia did not establish that he had knowingly waived his right to attend.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Patrick McGrath on 15 November 2024, concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued in 2016 and changed in January 2024. The warrant sought the respondent’s return to serve two years, 11 months and 27 days of his sentence for assault and robbery committed in circumstances of recidivism. The sentence had been imposed in November 2015 and became final the following month.
The respondent argued that surrender was barred because he had not received the protections required for a trial in his absence under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act. He also raised concerns about detention conditions in Poland and asked the court to consider his personal and family circumstances in any related applications.
On detention conditions, the judge said the respondent relied on a report concerning one Polish prison, based on a visit more than two years earlier, and had not shown a real risk that he would face inhuman or degrading treatment. The Polish authorities’ response to an information request gave the court no basis for concern on that issue.
The central issue was whether the respondent had been informed of his trial and the consequences of not attending, or otherwise had an effective opportunity for a retrial or appeal. The Polish authorities said notices were sent to an address he had provided in 2011 and were treated as served under Polish law. The respondent said he had not received them. He had signed instructions in 2011 requiring him to report a change of address, but those instructions did not say he could be tried in his absence. At that time, Polish law did not permit such a trial; that changed before his case was heard in 2015.
The judge found the respondent had failed to update his address and had made an informed decision to avoid service of documents. But the court was not satisfied that he knew a trial could proceed without him or that he could be convicted in his absence. He had no lawyer at the trial and, if surrendered, no unqualified right to a retrial or appeal. The judge therefore found neither the relevant section 45 conditions nor a sufficient basis to conclude that the respondent’s defence rights had been protected.
The court refused to make an order for surrender on the warrant. The judgment did not determine any separate application concerning the respondent’s personal or family circumstances.