The High Court ordered that Krzysztof Wroblewski be surrendered to Poland only to face prosecution for obtaining consumer credit by false pretences. It refused surrender for two theft matters and to serve a sentence that also covered an unlawful fishing offence, after finding the warrant did not establish the statutory requirements for those matters.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 9 July 2008 in an application under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant sought Wroblewski’s surrender both for prosecution for alleged theft and obtaining credit by false pretences, and to serve a six-month sentence imposed in 2002 for theft and unlawful fishing. The court said the credit offence was designated in the warrant as an Article 2.2 category offence, so double criminality did not need to be established for it.
The respondent argued that he had not fled Poland, that the warrant did not adequately specify how the six-month sentence related to each conviction, and that the offences did not correspond to offences under Irish law. The judge rejected the first two objections. He said Wroblewski’s evidence did not address whether he knew of the convictions or pending prosecutions when he left Poland, and the warrant adequately stated that a six-month custodial sentence had been imposed for the two offences. The court also found sufficient detail to establish that Poland had decided to prosecute him for the two offences sought for prosecution.
On correspondence, the judge found that the warrant’s descriptions of the theft allegations did not establish the elements required for Irish theft, including dishonesty, lack of the owner’s consent and an intention to deprive the owner of property. As a result, Wroblewski could not be surrendered for prosecution for the alleged pipe theft or to serve the sentence for the theft conviction. The judge noted that a further warrant containing more facts might enable correspondence to be established.
The court found that the alleged net fishing in the Noteć river corresponded to an Irish fisheries offence because the river was freshwater. But the six-month sentence was a composite sentence for theft and fishing, with no breakdown between them. The judge said the fishing offence, characterised under Polish law as a minor offence, could attract no more than 30 days’ detention. That could not satisfy the four-month minimum for surrender to serve a sentence.
The order therefore authorised surrender only for prosecution for obtaining consumer credit by false pretences. The judgment added that the issuing state was presumed to comply with its obligations and to prosecute only for the offence covered by the order.