The High Court has ordered Marek Siwy’s surrender to Poland under a European arrest warrant, after rejecting his remaining objection that he faced a real risk of excessively long pre-trial detention.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 22 June 2011, concerned a Polish warrant seeking Siwy for prosecution for one alleged murder offence. Siwy did not consent to surrender. The court considered whether the statutory requirements for an order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 were met and whether surrender was prohibited under Part 3 of the Act or the Framework Decision.
The judge found that Siwy was the person named in the warrant, that it had been properly endorsed and was in the correct form. The warrant alleged an offence carrying a maximum Polish sentence of life imprisonment, meeting the applicable minimum-gravity requirement. As Siwy had not been tried and was sought for prosecution, the court said an undertaking under section 45 did not arise.
Siwy’s objections included claims that Polish prison overcrowding could expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment, and that lengthy pre-trial detention could breach his rights. On 3 May 2011, his counsel withdrew the prison-conditions objection in light of an earlier High Court judgment and updated Polish prison-service data. The judge relied on the presumption that Poland would respect Siwy’s Article 3 rights, finding that the evidence did not rebut it.
The court separately examined the detention objection. Siwy had said he expected to be detained pending trial and feared the proceedings could take years. Poland’s response, provided after a request for further information, said a court would decide whether detention was justified and could consider bail or other measures. It also said Siwy had not applied for bail, that evidence-gathering in the preparatory proceedings was complete, and that the detention period was expected not to be long.
The judge accepted that the material warranted inquiry but found the Polish response sufficiently reassuring to conclude that there was no real risk, at that time, of a breach of Siwy’s right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial. The court did not decide the criminal allegation against him. It concluded that surrender was not prohibited by Part 3 or the Framework Decision and ordered his surrender to the issuing state.