The High Court ordered the surrender of A.P.L. to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections based on the hearing that revoked his conditional release, fair trial rights, family life and delay.
In a judgment delivered on 17 June 2015, Ms Justice Donnelly found the requirements for surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 were met. The warrant sought A.P.L. to serve the remaining part of a 10-year sentence imposed in Poland for 15 offences. The sentence had originally been 15 years and was reduced on appeal in 2000.
A.P.L. was conditionally released in 2004, with a year of his sentence remaining and a three-year probation period. The Warsaw Regional Court revoked that release in December 2006 after he failed to maintain contact with his probation officer and notify authorities of a change of address. He was not present at the revocation hearing, and it was not possible to serve him with notice.
The respondent argued that the revocation process was unfair, including because the Polish decision referred to separate drug proceedings. The Polish judicial authority later said those proceedings had no impact on the revocation, which followed a probation officer’s application based on A.P.L.’s failure to remain under supervision. The judge found no evidence of an egregious breach of fair trial rights. She said differences between legal systems were not enough to prevent surrender.
The court also considered whether the absence from the revocation hearing barred surrender under section 45. It held that the section did not require refusal where the person had attended the trial determining guilt and the original sentencing hearing, even if absent from a later hearing revoking a suspended sentence. The warrant’s updated section on absence from trial had not been completed, but the judge treated that omission as a technical failure: the other information established A.P.L.’s presence at trial and sentencing, and the omission caused no injustice.
The judge rejected the separate claim that surrender would create a real risk of a flagrant denial of fair trial rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She also weighed the public interest in enforcing the sentence against the respondent’s family life in Ireland. His affidavit said he had a partner, two young children, work and a rented business premises. The judge acknowledged the effect his absence would have on the family but found that the seriousness of the offending and the sentence outweighed those circumstances. She found no unexplained delay by the Polish authorities.
The court’s order was for surrender to a person authorised by Poland to receive him. The judgment determined the surrender application; it did not itself record that the transfer had taken place.