The High Court rejected a Polish national’s objection that surrender to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants would breach his and his family’s rights to respect for family life. Mr Justice Edwards found the Article 8 interference would not be gross or exceptional enough to prevent surrender. The judgment’s final text says surrender was not prohibited, but does not record a formal order directing it.
The warrants, issued in 2008 and 2009, sought the man for trial on a theft charge and to serve an eight-month sentence imposed in Poland in 2005 for an offence corresponding to deception. He did not consent to surrender. The court found the warrants met the statutory requirements, including minimum gravity, and considered his objection under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The man said he had lived in Ireland since May 2006 with his wife and three children, then aged six, eight and ten. He described the family as settled and said the children attended school and spoke English. He argued they could not reasonably be expected to move to Poland, where they would face educational disadvantage. He also outlined periods of employment and said pending proceedings had prevented him taking up recent job offers.
The court considered the Article 8 rights of the family as a whole and took the children’s welfare into account. It held, however, that their best interests were one relevant factor rather than a primary or paramount consideration. The judge said Irish domestic law did not incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’s requirement that children’s best interests be a primary consideration in all actions concerning them.
The judge accepted that surrender would disrupt family life, but said that disruption would be finite. He described the family’s roots in Ireland as relatively shallow after less than five years, noted that all were Polish nationals and that Polish was spoken at home, and said there was no evidence of extensive family or social networks, property or a business in Ireland. He did not accept that the wife and children could not reasonably follow the man to Poland.
The court also found the claimed educational harm unsupported by independent evidence. It noted the children were in primary school and already spoke Polish. Concluding that the family-life interference would not breach Article 8, the court held that surrender was not prohibited by Part 3 of the 2003 Act or the Framework Decision.