The High Court has ordered the surrender of Tibor Tomes to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant, so the Czech court can decide whether he must serve the remainder of a prison sentence following his release on parole.
In a judgment delivered on 22 February 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs found that surrender was not barred by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The order was made under section 16. It does not itself decide whether Mr Tomes will serve the remaining sentence; that decision is for the Czech court.
The warrant concerns three robbery offences described as having occurred in Karviná in August and November 2008. The warrant’s translated form had marked boxes for organised or armed robbery and illegal trafficking in narcotics. After the High Court sought clarification, the issuing authority said neither box should have been marked and attributed the error to translation. The judge found that the error had been explained and that Irish-law correspondence was established with robbery and assault offences.
The warrant materials said Mr Tomes received suspended sentences in 2009, and that one sentence was later activated after a breach of supervision. He served part of the sentence before being released on parole in October 2012. The Czech authority told the High Court he had attended the relevant hearing and waived a right to challenge the decision that he serve the sentence. The High Court held that no issue arose under section 45, which concerns trial in a person’s absence.
Mr Tomes objected that surrender would interfere disproportionately with his family life. In an affidavit, he said he lived in Thurles with his partner and two young children, including a son with autism who required substantial care. He said his partner would struggle to provide that care alone. The judge noted that no medical report about the child’s condition had been provided.
The court considered the passage of time and the family circumstances under section 37, including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It distinguished the case from a Supreme Court decision refusing surrender in exceptional circumstances, finding no comparable culpable delay here. The judge said the Czech authorities had acted with reasonable expedition after the respondent’s whereabouts were unknown and that the family circumstances were not so beyond the norm as to prohibit surrender. She found the evidence insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption that fundamental rights would be respected.