The High Court refused the Minister for Justice and Equality’s application to surrender a man to Poland on three of four designated offences, finding that the European Arrest Warrant did not meet the statutory requirements for those convictions. Surrender on the remaining offence was left unresolved pending further submissions about an apparent error in the sentence.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 17 February 2020, Mr Justice Coffey considered whether surrender was prohibited under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 because the man had not been present at proceedings resulting in the sentences.
For offence IIA, the man had not attended the 24 February 2005 conviction and sentence hearing. The issuing authority provided evidence that he had received notice of the trial, but the court said it had not supplied the required information showing that he was told a decision could be made if he did not attend. The judge held that this information was mandatory and refused surrender for that offence.
The court also refused surrender for offences IIB and IIC. The man had not attended the relevant trial proceedings. The Minister argued that his move to Ireland without leaving a forwarding address showed a manifest lack of diligence, and that surrender would not breach his defence rights. The judge accepted the account that the man had been advised of his obligations in Poland and had moved without notifying the authorities or designating an address for service. He found that this amounted to a manifest lack of diligence, but held that section 45 did not allow that circumstance to be treated as an exception. The judge said the statutory wording could not bear the interpretation sought by the Minister. The refusal on IIA also determined the application for IIB and IIC, whose sentences had been consolidated and could not be separated; the judge gave the same refusal on IIB and IIC in any event.
The position on offence I remained open. The man had attended his original 2004 trial and sentencing, but was absent when a suspended sentence was activated in August 2005. The judge considered that later hearing an execution of the original sentence, not a discretionary change to its nature or level. However, the sentencing records appeared to miscalculate credit for 201 days spent in temporary custody: the later decision credited only 37 days. The issuing authority said full credit would be given, but the judge said there appeared to be no underlying sentence authorising the relevant period of imprisonment. He invited submissions on whether the error could lawfully be corrected, including through assurances or undertakings. If it could not, surrender for offence I would be refused.
The judgment therefore did not make a final decision on surrender for offence I. The source records no later ruling on that issue.