The Court of Appeal has dismissed Piotr Pawel Skiba’s challenge to a High Court order setting a new date for his surrender to Poland, following an unsuccessful attempt to put him on a flight from Dublin Airport.
The court held that the High Court judge had assessed the evidence with due diligence and was entitled to find that circumstances beyond the State’s control meant Skiba would not be surrendered within the statutory period. The appeal concerned only the renewed surrender date and related detention order; the Court of Appeal did not revisit the earlier order authorising his surrender.
A European Arrest Warrant issued by Poland sought Skiba’s return to serve two prison sentences, of nine months and 18 months, after convictions in Poland. On 1 December 2016, the High Court ordered his surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Authorities arranged for him to travel on a commercial flight from Dublin to Poland on 22 December.
At the airport, Skiba refused to proceed beyond the departure gate. A Garda sergeant later told the High Court that the pilot decided he did not want Skiba on the plane. The attempted surrender was abandoned and Skiba was returned to Cloverhill Prison.
The next day, the High Court heard evidence from the Garda sergeant and granted the State’s application under section 16(5) of the Act. It fixed 5 January 2017 as a new surrender date, with the Polish judicial authority’s agreement, and ordered Skiba detained pending surrender.
On appeal, Skiba argued that the failed flight was foreseeable because his solicitor had told the Garda sergeant on 12 December that he feared flying. The State’s correspondence with Polish authorities had discussed the risk that he might resist boarding and the possibility of alternative travel arrangements. Skiba’s counsel argued that proceeding with the planned flight despite that warning meant the failure was not beyond the authorities’ control.
The Court of Appeal accepted the State’s argument that the reported fear, without further detail or supporting evidence, did not make refusal to board reasonably foreseeable. No medical material was provided, and neither Skiba nor his solicitor gave evidence at the High Court hearing. The court said the statutory assessment belonged to the High Court judge, not the Central Authority, whose correspondence did not establish that the risk was accepted as reasonably foreseeable.
The appeal was dismissed. The new surrender date and the associated detention order therefore remained in place.