The High Court has refused a request to surrender Artur Machaczka to Poland for prosecution, finding that the repeat application’s delay and the respondent’s continuing personal circumstances made refusal appropriate on abuse of process grounds.
The European arrest warrant sought his surrender in connection with two alleged deception offences: one said to have occurred between 6 February and 8 March 2001, and another on 25 August 2000. The warrant was issued in March 2020 and endorsed by the High Court in February 2021. The respondent was arrested in June 2021.
This was a second surrender application concerning the offences. In 2012, the High Court refused surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act, finding that it would disproportionately interfere with the respondent’s right to private and family life. That decision relied on his serious mental health condition, treatment and the support provided by his family, as well as the risk of suicide if surrendered. The judge had also noted that the respondent would be separated from family members whose support was essential.
The Polish authorities told the court that clozapine could be used to treat the respondent in Poland if specified conditions were met. The respondent’s psychiatrist disputed that it could legally be prescribed there for schizoaffective disorder. The judge said it was outside the court’s role to determine the drug’s legality or advisability in Poland. Relying on information from the issuing authority and a forensic medical report, the judge accepted that clozapine was conditionally available. He found this was a material change since the earlier case, but not enough to resolve the surrender objections.
The judge said the earlier refusal had not rested only on clozapine’s availability. Evidence in the current proceedings indicated that the respondent continued to need and receive significant family support. The judge found that this remained the most significant exceptional circumstance identified in 2012.
The court also considered the repeat application and the time elapsed since the earlier proceedings, the change in Polish limitation law and the alleged offences. It found that the respondent’s mental health problems were known to both authorities and that the current application had adversely affected his condition. The alleged offences did not involve violence.
Taking those factors together, the court concluded that this was a rare case in which surrender could be refused for abuse of process. It expressly said there was no suggestion of bad faith or misconduct by the Polish or Irish authorities. The court refused the application for an order surrendering the respondent to Poland; it did not determine the allegations against him.