The High Court has refused to surrender a man to Poland under three European arrest warrants, finding that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s right to respect for family life. The court also found that a separate legal bar applied to the warrant seeking to enforce a sentence imposed in his absence.
In a judgment delivered on 12 October 2012, Mr Justice Edwards said the man was sought under two warrants for prosecution and a third to serve a one-year sentence. The court declined to make the surrender orders requested under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The respondent objected to surrender on several grounds, including his mental health and the risk of suicide. His psychiatrist, Dr Michael Doran, gave evidence that he faced a very serious risk of suicide if surrendered, particularly if separated from his family and unable to continue the treatment he was receiving in Ireland. The court accepted that evidence.
However, the judge did not find that surrender would breach the respondent’s rights to life or to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment. The court considered information supplied by Polish authorities about psychiatric care in custody, including an assurance that the respondent would receive the same standard of care as any Polish citizen with the same condition. It concluded that the evidence did not establish a real risk of a breach of those rights.
The court found, instead, that there were “truly exceptional circumstances” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It considered the respondent’s serious and progressive mental illness, the importance of support from his partner and children, the likelihood of detention in Poland, and the risk associated with losing treatment that had helped stabilise his condition. The judge concluded that surrender under all three warrants would be a disproportionate interference with family life.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the respondent had fled Poland to evade justice. It found insufficient evidence of flight, noting his trips back to Poland for medical treatment and accepting his partner’s evidence that the move to Ireland was for employment and financial reasons.
For the third warrant, which sought enforcement of the one-year sentence, the court found an additional bar under section 45. The material did not show that the respondent had been personally notified of the time and place of his trial, and Poland had given no undertaking that he would receive a retrial. The court therefore declined surrender under all three warrants.