The High Court has ordered the surrender of Michał Stryczek to Poland to serve two prison sentences, after rejecting his objection that the later sentence could not support surrender because he was absent from the hearing that led to it.
In a judgment delivered on 20 January 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns found that surrender was not prohibited under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He then ordered surrender under section 16(1) in respect of both sentences. The court’s ruling concerned the surrender application; it did not reconsider the underlying convictions or sentences.
The European arrest warrant sought Stryczek’s return to serve an aggregate two-year sentence imposed in 2006 for robbery and assault, and a 12-month sentence imposed in 2010 for assault. The earlier sentence had initially been suspended and was activated in December 2010 following the later conviction. The later sentence was also initially suspended; it was activated in September 2011 after he failed to comply with its terms, including paying compensation.
Stryczek objected that the 2010 proceedings did not meet the requirements for surrender where a person was absent from the proceedings resulting in sentence. The issuing Polish authority said the later case was resolved by agreement: Stryczek admitted the offence and applied for a 12-month suspended sentence, supervision and payment of PLN 1,000 to the injured party. Documents supplied to the High Court included his signed application and instructions explaining his rights and obligations.
Stryczek initially denied signing those documents, but accepted through counsel, after the documents were provided, that he had signed them. He maintained that he had not been personally made aware of proceedings. The judge found that he knew proceedings were pending when he left Poland for Ireland, and knew he had to provide a Polish address for service if he left. The judge said it could not be established that Stryczek’s sister, who collected hearing and judgment notifications at the address on file, had told him about them.
The judge accepted that none of the specific situations listed in section 45 directly matched the circumstances. Applying the Supreme Court’s purposive approach in *Minister for Justice v Zarnescu* [2020] IESC 59, he concluded that Stryczek’s failure to provide an address amounted to an informed choice to avoid service and not take further part in the process. He found his defence rights had been adequately protected and not breached, noting that the sentence imposed was the penalty Stryczek had requested.
The respondent’s counsel accepted that if the section 45 objection failed for the later sentence, there was no separate bar to surrender for the earlier one. The court dismissed the objection and ordered surrender in respect of both sentences.