The High Court prohibited Robert Lesko’s surrender to the Czech Republic on one of four European Arrest Warrants, but found no legal bar to surrender on the other three.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly ruled that the first warrant could not support surrender because the Czech issuing authority’s later information appeared to change the sentence itself. The warrant sought Lesko to serve six years and six months, while the later information said the sentence would be reduced by 18 months and 221 days to approximately four years and five months. The court found the explanation unclear and said that changing the sentence’s duration required a new warrant. It declined to seek further clarification.
That warrant concerned convictions in absentia for burglary, robbery, theft and criminal damage. The court accepted the issuing authority’s clarification that it covered nine offences, rather than the seven initially stated, and rejected Lesko’s objections about correspondence of offences and trial in absentia. It also rejected his claim that a robbery allegation had been withdrawn, accepting the account in the Czech court judgment.
The second warrant concerned a 20-month sentence for theft and criminal damage. The issuing authority clarified that 18 months remained to be served. The court found that the earlier 18-month sentence Lesko had served was relevant to the Czech penalty for theft, but did not form part of the sentence under this warrant. It found no ambiguity preventing surrender and rejected his objection concerning the appeal hearing: the trial at which guilt was determined was the relevant proceeding, and he had been personally summoned to it.
The third warrant concerned a 14-month sentence for theft, unauthorised possession of a credit card and criminal damage. The court found that the earlier sentence had been mentioned to establish the relevance of a prior theft conviction under Czech law, and did not affect the 14-month sentence sought. It also accepted the Czech authority’s assurance that Lesko would be entitled to a retrial on the merits.
The fourth warrant sought Lesko’s surrender for prosecution over alleged robbery and extortion. The court found the alleged conduct would correspond to offences in Irish law and rejected his objections based on delay, medical conditions, and claimed risk of discriminatory treatment as a Roma man. It said he had not established substantial grounds for believing he would face less favourable treatment or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. It also concluded surrender would not disproportionately interfere with his private life, taking account of his health and the public interest.
The court therefore prohibited surrender under the first warrant and found no grounds to prohibit it under the second, third or fourth. It said it could make an order under section 16 for surrender on those three warrants.