The High Court has refused an application to surrender a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant covering three enforceable judgments. Mr Justice Binchy gave judgment on 5 June 2019, finding that surrender was prohibited in relation to each offence.
The warrant, dated 22 May 2018, was issued by a district court in Jelenia Góra. The respondent was arrested in Ireland in February 2019. At the hearing on 1 May, the judge was satisfied that he was the person named in the warrant and that the warrant contained the required information. He also found no basis to refuse surrender under several other provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The first judgment concerned a 2003 drink-driving offence in Kamienna Góra, for which the respondent received five months’ imprisonment. A previous warrant had been considered by the High Court in 2013, when surrender was refused because the available alcohol measurements could not establish correspondence with an offence under Irish law. The new warrant referred to a breath reading, but the Minister provided no evidence showing that the level exceeded what was permitted in Ireland. The judge said nothing material had changed and again refused surrender on that offence.
The second judgment concerned a 2004 offence involving false statements to obtain goods on credit, for which the respondent received a one-year sentence. The warrant said he had submitted a written application to accept a penalty without a trial, and that the judgment was later sent to him. The judge held that this procedure did not meet the requirements of section 45 of the 2003 Act. The warrant did not establish that the judgment had been served or that the respondent had been offered a choice of retrial. Surrender for this offence was therefore prohibited.
The third judgment covered five offences in July and August 2004 and carried a two-year sentence. The warrant said the respondent’s wife collected notice of the trial and the judgment. The judge found this did not establish that the respondent himself knew the trial date: the Court of Justice of the European Union had held that it must be unequivocally established that a third party passed a summons to the person concerned. No such proof was before the court, and surrender for these offences was also refused.
The judgment records that the court refused surrender in respect of all three judgments. It does not make an order for surrender.