The High Court has ordered the surrender of Rafał Łukasik to Poland under two European arrest warrants, after dismissing his objection based on alleged deficiencies in the Polish justice system.
Mr Justice Paul Burns delivered the judgment on 12 January 2021. The warrants seek his surrender to serve sentences imposed in Poland. The court made an order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for surrender in respect of both warrants.
The first warrant, issued in 2015, concerns a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed in 2011 for two offences relating to the theft or attempted theft of motor vehicles. The full sentence remained to be served. The respondent argued that the minimum sentence threshold was not met because the applicant had not shown that at least four months remained for each offence separately. The judge held that the threshold applied to the single enforceable order, and was met because the full 18 months remained.
The second warrant, issued in 2014, seeks enforcement of a 30-month sentence imposed in 2012, with two years, two months and two days remaining. The sentence relates to deprivation of another person’s liberty and facilitation or incitement of prostitution. The issuing authority certified that the relevant offence fell within the warrant category of kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking. The judge found no manifest error or ambiguity in that certification and said correspondence could also be established with the Irish offence of false imprisonment.
The respondent argued that surrender would breach the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights because of systemic concerns about judicial independence in Poland. His solicitor filed affidavits with reports, including one by a Polish lawyer. The judge said the material did not identify any feature of the respondent’s circumstances or proceedings that indicated a particular risk.
Applying the approach in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s LM judgment and the Supreme Court’s Celmer judgment, the judge said generalised deficiencies alone were insufficient. The respondent had to show substantial grounds for believing that he personally would face a real risk of a breach of his right to a fair trial. The judge found no such evidence and dismissed the objection.
The court was satisfied that the statutory minimum gravity requirements were met for both warrants and that surrender was not prohibited by section 37 or other relevant provisions. It therefore ordered surrender to Poland under both warrants.