The High Court has ordered the surrender of Vēsma Veļičko to Latvia for prosecution on three alleged offences, dismissing her objections to the European arrest warrant.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns found that the warrant provided enough information about the three offences and that section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 did not prevent surrender. The order was made under section 16(1) of the Act.
Latvia seeks Ms Veļičko’s surrender over allegations concerning sham marriages arranged to facilitate unlawful residence in the EU, and two alleged human trafficking offences. The judgment records that she was arrested and brought before the High Court on 29 September 2020, after the warrant was endorsed on 20 July 2020.
Her counsel argued that the warrant was unclear about whether its first offence description covered several separate offences, potentially carrying separate sentences. The issuing authority provided further information confirming that Ms Veļičko was to face prosecution for three offences only, and that the first alleged offence was treated as one continued criminal offence for which only one sentence could be imposed. Mr Justice Burns concluded that the warrant gave sufficient particulars for her to understand the allegations, potential penalties and information relevant to the rule of specialty.
The second objection relied on section 44, which can bar surrender in specified circumstances where an offence was committed outside the issuing state and the conduct would not constitute an offence under Irish law by virtue of having occurred outside Ireland. The judge held that the first requirement was not met: according to the warrant, some alleged acts relating to each offence took place in Latvia. These included recruiting or deceiving women there and their subsequent travel to Ireland. The court therefore dismissed the section 44 objection without considering its second requirement.
The judgment concerns whether surrender should be ordered under the warrant. It does not determine whether the allegations are true or whether Ms Veļičko is guilty; those matters are for the prosecution proceedings in Latvia.