The High Court has refused an application to surrender a man to Poland to serve the remainder of a prison sentence, after the Minister for Justice accepted that the requirements for convictions made in a person’s absence had not been met.
In a judgment delivered on 14 January 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs ruled that surrender was precluded under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The application concerned a warrant issued on 7 March 2018 seeking the respondent’s return to serve one year and six months of a sentence imposed in Poland on 1 August 2017.
The respondent was arrested in Ireland on 4 October 2021 following a Schengen Information System alert. The court was satisfied he was the person named in the warrant and that the minimum gravity threshold was met. An objection under section 38, raised initially, was withdrawn in an amended notice. The judge was satisfied that the conduct described corresponded to robbery under Irish law.
The respondent objected that he had not been notified of the Polish hearing. The warrant recorded that he did not attend and said summonses had been sent to an address in Warsaw, twice advised and considered duly served. In affidavits, the respondent said he had left Poland for Ireland in May 2015 and had not received notice of a court date. Those were his statements to the court, not findings made by the judge.
At Ireland’s request, the Polish issuing authority was asked to explain how the respondent actually received notice, what “twice advised” meant, and when the summonses were issued. Its response, received on 31 December 2021, added no meaningful information in support of the application, the judge said.
The Minister accepted that the issuing authority could not confirm actual service or an unequivocal waiver of the respondent’s rights, and conceded that section 45 had not been complied with. The judge held that surrender was therefore precluded.
The respondent also raised objections under section 37, including claims about judicial independence in Poland and the risk of inhumane or degrading treatment because he is a member of the LGBTQI+ community. He sought to adjourn that part of the case pending other proceedings. Justice Biggs did not adjudicate on those matters, given her decision under section 45. The court’s order refused the surrender application.