The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Tomáš Pùta and Maroš Šulej against orders for their surrender to the Czech Republic under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, affirming the High Court orders. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 6 May 2008, dealt with three grounds of appeal separate from the appellants’ constitutional challenge to the Act, which the court had already rejected.
The warrants were issued by the Regional Court in Prague on 10 July 2006. Pùta was sought on seven charges of robbery and theft, and Šulej on four. The alleged offences were said to have occurred in the Czech Republic in 2000 and 2001. The High Court endorsed the warrants on 14 July 2006, and the appellants were arrested on 25 August that year. The High Court ordered surrender under section 16(1) of the Act.
The appellants argued that Czech law treated Czech citizens differently over surrender for offences alleged to predate 1 January 2005, and said this meant the warrants were not duly issued. The Supreme Court said no Czech court had set aside the warrants and the affidavits did not allege that the Prague court’s decisions were invalid. It held that the validity of Czech law was a matter for the Czech legal system and declined to decide whether the alleged distinction amounted to discrimination.
They also said they feared for their safety and would not receive a fair trial in the Czech Republic. The court found no independent evidence supporting the broad allegations of corruption and violence. It said a person could resist surrender by proving a risk of mistreatment, but the evidence had to be cogent and rebut the presumption that the issuing state generally respected human rights. The affidavits did not meet that burden, so this ground was dismissed.
On the third ground, the appellants relied on evidence from a Czech official at bail hearings about other criminal matters. The evidence indicated that Pùta had been convicted in his absence and sentenced to imprisonment in December 2005, and that he was suspected of other offences, including murder. Other matters involving Šulej were said to be under investigation. The Supreme Court said it was unclear whether Pùta had served any sentence.
The court held that the appellants had not established that Czech law lacked protections against prosecution or detention for other offences committed before surrender, or that they would face such action. It stated that the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision prohibits prosecution or imprisonment for pre-surrender offences outside the warrant charges, subject to exceptions not relevant to the case. The court said a breach by the Czech Republic would violate its obligations, but the appellants had not shown that such a breach would occur. It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the High Court orders.