The High Court refused to surrender a man to the Czech Republic under a European arrest warrant, holding that his continuing refugee status prohibited his return to the country from which he had fled.
Mr Justice Michael Peart gave judgment on 19 May 2010. The respondent’s surrender had been sought so he could serve a two-year prison sentence imposed by a court in Pardubice in 2001 for offences committed in 1990. The judgment describes the offences as causing bodily harm and causing a breach of the peace. The respondent had not been present at his trial, although he had attended earlier stages of the proceedings. The warrant referred to a Czech procedure allowing a retrial after surrender.
The respondent had been granted refugee status in Ireland in 2001 on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution in the Czech Republic. He was a member of the Roma community and had been politically active there. The judgment records that he left after threats against him and his family. The Minister had not revoked his refugee declaration.
The respondent raised several objections, including the trial in his absence, the adequacy of the retrial arrangements, delay and the specialty rule. The principal issue argued was whether his refugee status barred surrender. The judge said the answer to that issue made it unnecessary to decide the remaining objections.
The court held that the refugee declaration remained in force and that it was not for the surrender court to reassess whether the respondent would still face persecution. The judgment relied on the protection against return to a territory where a refugee’s life or freedom would be threatened, and on Ireland’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It concluded that surrender would breach the State’s obligations and was prohibited by section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
The judge rejected abuse of process as the basis for the result, saying there was no evidence that those involved knew of the respondent’s refugee status when the surrender application was brought. He said the Minister was required to bring such an application when a warrant was transmitted.
The court refused to make the surrender order and discharged the respondent on 26 March 2010. The judgment does not determine the other objections.