The Supreme Court has refused an application to surrender Slawomir Wiktur Palonka to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant seeking enforcement of a 10-month sentence for a 1999 cannabis importation offence.
In a judgment delivered on 8 February 2022, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the case involved a 23-year delay, Mr Palonka’s long residence in Ireland and the establishment of family life here. The Court concluded that surrender would cause an “exceptional and oppressive disruption to family life”.
The application had followed two High Court hearings and two Supreme Court appeals. The first High Court order for surrender was made in 2019. On the first appeal, the Supreme Court found that there was not enough information to decide the case and sent it back for further fact-finding. The High Court then made findings in 2021, and the Supreme Court considered the appeal again to reach a final determination.
The sentence related to a July 1999 offence. It was initially imposed as a 10-month prison term suspended in 2002. A separate narcotics offence in March 2003 led to the suspension being lifted in January 2006. The High Court found that Mr Palonka had appeared at the 2003 trial, pleaded guilty, and was represented. He did not attend his 2004 appeal hearing but had received and signed for notice; a lawyer represented him. He was not present or represented when the suspended 1999 sentence was activated in 2006.
The Polish authorities sought surrender in 2012 in connection with the separate 2003 offence. That request succeeded in the High Court but was rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2015. A further warrant concerning the 1999 offence issued in January 2019. The High Court’s inquiries found that Polish authorities did not provide a simple explanation for the timing. The evidence pointed to separate Polish judicial authorities and a breakdown in communications, rather than a deliberate scheme to undermine Mr Palonka’s rights.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the process amounted to an abuse of process. It also found no basis to refuse surrender on the ground that Mr Palonka lacked representation at the crucial 2004 hearing. However, the Court said the unresolved explanation for the timing of the later warrant had to be considered alongside the lengthy delay and the family life established in Ireland since 2005. It held that delay alone did not create a right to refuse surrender, but the circumstances together were exceptional. The Court therefore refused surrender.