The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under a European arrest warrant so he can serve a 12-month sentence imposed there in 2003. The court rejected three objections raised on his behalf, including that he had not fled Poland before serving the sentence.
The warrant sought his surrender to serve a sentence imposed on 21 November 2003 for an attempted break-in at a grocery shop in Ostróda. The judgment says the sentence was conditionally suspended, subject to “a curator’s supervision”. After the Polish court learned that he had left Poland, it lifted the suspension and ordered the sentence to be served on 4 November 2005.
The respondent argued that he could not be treated as having fled Poland before beginning the sentence because he was in custody in Ireland when the suspension was lifted. The court held that the sentence was imposed in 2003, and that leaving Poland after that date but before serving it met the wording of section 10(d) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It rejected that objection.
The court also considered whether the conduct described in the warrant corresponded to burglary under Irish law. The warrant said the respondent and others forced a board from a shop door, entered, and tried to take goods before an alarm scared them away. The respondent’s barrister argued that the warrant did not say he entered as a trespasser. The judge concluded that the described break-in and attempted theft amounted to burglary under section 12(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
A further objection said the warrant lacked information about the maximum penalty available for the Polish offence. The court rejected that argument, finding that because the respondent had already been sentenced, the warrant’s statement of the 12-month sentence was sufficient.
The judgment records that the respondent was arrested in Ireland in September 2008 and was serving a separate seven-year Irish sentence for a cocaine-smuggling offence. The surrender decision concerns the Polish sentence. The High Court concluded that surrender was required under the Act and ordered it.