The High Court has ordered Dariusz Florczak’s surrender to Poland to face trial on allegations of swindling and organised or armed robbery. Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed objections based on Poland’s justice system, the delay in the case and the effect on Mr Florczak’s family life in Ireland.
The European Arrest Warrant sought Mr Florczak’s surrender for prosecution over two alleged offences. The first concerns an allegation that, between 10 September and 2 October 2001 in Łódź, he and others obtained PLN 20,000 from Andrzej Pawelec in connection with the return of items previously stolen in a burglary. The second alleges that, between mid-October and mid-November 2003 near Teodorów, Mr Florczak and others beat and kicked Włodzimierz Najder, threatened him with a firearm and stole PLN 100,000 and his identity card. These are allegations set out in the warrant, not findings in the Irish proceedings.
Mr Florczak argued that surrender would expose him to a real risk of an unfair trial because of changes to Poland’s justice system. The judge said general concerns about the Polish courts were not enough: the respondent had to provide evidence of a specific risk to him. His counsel accepted that no evidence of such individual risk or prejudice had been presented, and the objection was dismissed.
The court also considered the time since the alleged offences and Mr Florczak’s family circumstances. He said he had lived and worked in Ireland since 2007, lived with his wife and daughter, and supported his son and grandchildren. He also cited his wife’s back condition and his daughter’s plans to start university. The judge found these circumstances, considered with the delay, were not exceptional enough to make surrender incompatible with Ireland’s obligations under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment records that Polish proceedings were suspended in 2014 after authorities could not locate Mr Florczak, and that the warrant was issued in April 2019. The judge accepted that the passage of time was considerable, but found it was not, on its own, so exceptional or unexplained as to justify refusing surrender. He also found the information before the court sufficient and did not seek further information under section 20 of the 2003 Act.
The court dismissed the objections and found surrender was not prohibited under Part 3 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It then ordered surrender to Poland under section 16(1). The judgment determines surrender; it does not decide whether Mr Florczak committed either alleged offence.