The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Ivo Smits against an order for his surrender to Latvia to serve a prison sentence. It found no basis on the evidence in this case to refuse surrender because of the delay in transmitting the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on 15 April 2021, concerned a two-year sentence imposed after Mr Smits admitted charges relating to the theft and misuse of his former girlfriend’s credit card. The sentence was initially suspended, then activated after a court found he had not complied with its conditions. He appealed, but did not appear at the appeal hearing. The sentence, less two days already served, became enforceable in December 2008.
Mr Smits had travelled to Ireland for work and had lived here since November 2008. A Latvian court proposed that an EAW be issued in April 2015. It was issued on 8 June 2015, but was not transmitted to Ireland until 5 April 2018. The judgment records that no explanation was provided for the nearly three-year gap, despite a direct request for one.
Mr Smits argued that developments in his life after the warrant was issued, including his marriage to an Irish citizen and declining health, meant there should be a court process in Latvia to reassess whether enforcing the sentence remained proportionate. The further evidence before the Supreme Court indicated that, if returned, he would serve the sentence and could not seek a court reassessment based on delay, family circumstances or rehabilitation. Parole would depend on good behaviour in prison. The Court noted that the evidence did not address whether other forms of sentence mitigation were available in Latvia.
The Court rejected the argument that EU law required a further formal judicial proportionality review because time had passed. It said a lawfully issued EAW does not become invalid through delay alone, and that Irish courts cannot act as appeal courts reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence imposed abroad. The delay did not establish an abuse of process.
The judgment nevertheless left open the possibility that an executing court could refuse surrender where cogent evidence established a real risk to the person’s rights and no court or executive process was available to mitigate the effects of delay. The Court found that threshold was not met here and dismissed the appeal. It also concluded that no question of law warranted a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.