The High Court deferred a final decision on whether Piotr Ludwin should be surrendered to Poland under a European arrest warrant, directing that further information be sought about two aggregate prison sentences and awaiting a European court ruling on Poland’s rule of law.
In a judgment delivered on 23 April 2018, Ms Justice Donnelly considered a Polish warrant seeking Ludwin to serve sentences arising from five offences. The court found no bar to surrender for a one-year sentence imposed in 2005. It was satisfied that the warrant materials showed he had been summoned to that trial and notified of the decision and his right to seek a retrial or appeal.
The judge also found that the offences corresponded to offences under Irish law for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act. Although the warrant had incorrectly treated three offences as falling within a category that could dispense with the usual double-criminality requirement, the court said it could assess whether the conduct corresponded to Irish offences. It concluded that it did.
The court was not satisfied, however, that the required information had been provided about Ludwin’s attendance or notice concerning the 2012 cumulative judgment. That judgment combined earlier cases into aggregate terms of one year and four months and two years’ imprisonment. The issuing authority’s form indicated that he did not attend and that he had notice and legal representation, but did not explain how those conditions were met. The judge said the information required under section 45 was therefore missing.
The judge considered whether to request more information under section 20. Despite earlier incomplete responses and delay, she decided such a request was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences and the delay partly caused by Ludwin’s failure to attend an earlier hearing in Ireland. The court directed that the information be sought so it could be considered before final determination.
Donnelly rejected Ludwin’s argument that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his family and personal life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. His account included having lived and worked in Ireland and having family here. The judge cited the seriousness and violent nature of the offences and concluded that his personal circumstances did not justify refusing surrender on that ground.
The court also deferred its final ruling on the argument concerning the rule of law in Poland, pending the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in the related Celmer proceedings. The judgment did not order surrender: it left the case unresolved while further information and that ruling were awaited.