The Supreme Court has upheld an order surrendering Jaroslav Stankiewicz to Poland after rejecting his argument that he had not “fled” the country within the meaning of Ireland’s European arrest warrant legislation.
Mr Justice Geoghegan dismissed Mr Stankiewicz’s appeal against a May 2008 High Court order directing his surrender to the Polish authorities.
The case concerned two offences committed in Poland in 1997 and 1998. In January 2001, a Polish court imposed a sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment but suspended it for five years.
Mr Stankiewicz was subsequently convicted in November 2004 of another offence committed during the suspension period. Polish law provided for activation of the earlier prison sentence following the later conviction. Mr Stankiewicz moved to Ireland in March 2005, before a Polish court formally ordered the suspended sentence to be served in May 2005.
He told the Irish courts that he had moved to Ireland for work, was not prohibited from leaving Poland and had not sought to evade justice. He also disputed the later offence and complained that the 2004 conviction resulted from proceedings in his absence.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. It found that Mr Stankiewicz knew or ought to have known that the later conviction exposed him to activation of his suspended sentence and that Polish law required him to maintain an address at which court documents could be served.
The court also noted information from Poland indicating that a lawyer had acted for him in proceedings concerning activation of the sentence and that challenges were subsequently brought on his behalf.
Mr Justice Geoghegan distinguished the earlier Tobin European arrest warrant case, where the person sought had left Hungary with the authorities’ approval. He held that the circumstances here supported the conclusion that Mr Stankiewicz had fled within the statutory meaning.
The appeal was therefore dismissed, leaving the High Court surrender order in place.