The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections to a third warrant seeking his return to serve the balance of a prison sentence.
In a judgment delivered on 22 November 2012, Mr Justice Edwards made the order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant concerns a conviction for possession of drugs for sale or supply. The respondent had received a nine-month sentence in Poland in January 2004, with three months and five days remaining to be served, according to the judgment.
The respondent argued that the repeated warrants, delay and disruption to his family life made surrender unfair and oppressive. He said he had lived in Ireland since 2004 with his partner and child, and relied on rights to family life and liberty. He also raised concerns about prison conditions and his health. The prison-conditions objection was not pursued at the hearing.
Two earlier warrants had been withdrawn without a surrender order or a decision on the merits. The first, issued in 2010, covered the drugs offence and other offences. A second warrant, issued in November 2011, was intended to address the drugs case after proceedings in Poland concerning a suspended sentence for other offences, but it incorrectly sought surrender for those other offences. It was withdrawn in April 2012. The present warrant, issued in March 2012, concerns only the drugs conviction.
The judge distinguished the case from an earlier Supreme Court decision involving a previous substantive ruling against surrender. Here, he said, no Irish court had ruled on the merits under either earlier warrant, and the circumstances had not led the respondent to believe the matter was over. He found no abuse of the court’s process and no oppression reaching the level of a breach of fundamental rights.
The court held that the evidence did not establish that surrender would be a disproportionate interference with the respondent’s or his family’s right to respect for family life. It also found that the constitutional right to family life under Article 41 did not apply to a family not based on marriage, and that surrender to serve a lawful sentence would not disproportionately interfere with the respondent’s right to liberty. The court said there was insufficient evidence to displace the presumption that Poland would respect his rights in prison.
The ruling decides the surrender application under the current warrant. It does not record that surrender had already taken place.