The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland to serve two prison sentences, rejecting his objections based on fair-trial protections, delay and family life in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 9 May 2023, Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo made an order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant sought surrender to enforce sentences of 18 months and two years, with both sentences still to be served in full.
The man was arrested on 24 September 2022. The court said the warrant had been produced on 6 October that year and found that the person before it was the person named in the warrant. It also found that the statutory minimum gravity threshold was met, that no issue arose under section 11, and that the offences corresponded to offences under Irish law. These included obstruction or assault of a peace officer, threatening or abusive behaviour in a public place, and threats to kill or cause serious harm.
The respondent argued that surrender would breach section 45 of the Act because Polish court decisions in 2010 had extended the time before the sentences could become time-barred. He contended those decisions were trials resulting in decisions for the purposes of Article 4a of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision. The Minister submitted that the decisions merely stopped time running and did not change the nature or length of the sentences.
The judge accepted the Minister’s submission. He found that the 2010 decisions did not modify the nature or quantum of the custodial sentences and did not review the merits of the cases. That conclusion determined the section 45 issue, so the court did not need to consider the parties’ evidence and arguments about what the Polish authorities knew of the respondent’s whereabouts or whether he had absconded.
The respondent also relied on section 37 of the Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In his affidavits, he said he had lived in Ireland since 2012, worked for a recycling company, lived with his wife and two daughters, and owned a mortgaged home with his wife. He argued that his imprisonment could leave his family unable to meet mortgage payments.
The judge said incarceration would cause financial hardship, but found the evidence did not establish that the mortgage could not be paid or that the home would be at risk of repossession. He concluded that the circumstances, individually or together, were not exceptional enough to bar surrender. The court therefore rejected the section 37 and Article 8 objections and ordered surrender to the Republic of Poland.