The High Court has rejected three objections to a European arrest warrant seeking Dariusz Stalkowski’s surrender to Poland for prosecution and to serve a sentence. The supplied judgment records that Mr Justice Edwards dismissed the objections, but does not include a final order on surrender.
The warrant, issued in October 2010 and endorsed in Ireland in January 2011, concerned both prosecution and execution of a sentence. For one prosecution charge, the respondent argued that Polish authorities had changed the legal classification of an alleged 2000 misappropriation shortly before the original charge was due to become time-barred. His Polish lawyer said a Polish court had asked the prosecutor whether the charge could be changed, noting that this would extend the period for prosecution. The prosecutor then substituted a charge carrying a longer limitation period. The respondent alleged improper pressure and bad faith.
The judge accepted that an executing court can protect its process if a requesting state acts in bad faith. But he found no cogent evidence that the prosecutor or court had acted unlawfully or in bad faith. The Polish court’s letter asked for the prosecutor’s opinion and, the judge said, contained no threat or inducement. The suggestion that it improperly influenced the prosecutor was speculation. The court declined to uphold the abuse-of-process objection, observing that any challenge to the procedure in Poland should be pursued there.
The respondent also argued that delay, as a stand-alone ground, justified refusing surrender. The judge said the Irish European Arrest Warrant Act did not provide for refusal on delay alone, and the warrant was a request between states rather than a domestic command to arrest. He declined to uphold that objection. He noted that delay could be relevant to a separate claim that surrender would prejudice a specific right, including under section 37 of the Act.
Finally, the respondent relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his family life and privacy. The judge found that the evidence fell far short of what was required to establish disproportionate interference and rejected the objection.
The extract ends after that conclusion. It does not state whether the court ultimately ordered surrender or give further reasons on the Article 8 issue.