The High Court has refused to certify three proposed questions for appeal to the Supreme Court in a European arrest warrant case involving Wojciech Kasprowicz. The court had ordered his surrender to Poland in September 2013; the judgment addressed only whether that decision could be appealed under the certification test in section 16(11) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
The warrant was issued by Poland on 23 November 2009, endorsed for execution in Ireland on 17 July 2012 and executed on 6 June 2013. It concerned an accusation of a single alleged deception involving a forged document. At the surrender hearing, the respondent opposed surrender on grounds concerning the rule of specialty and delay. The court rejected those objections and ordered surrender on 13 September 2013.
The respondent then asked the High Court to certify three questions: whether the rule of specialty prevented surrender where earlier Polish sentences remained unexecuted; whether an unexplained delay of almost three years could itself justify refusal of surrender; and whether there was an unenumerated constitutional right to freedom from oppression that could be relied on under section 37 of the Act.
On specialty, the court said the earlier sentences and the present warrant’s acknowledgment of another warrant did not, without more, rebut the statutory presumption that Poland would respect the rule. It found no evidence that Poland intended to execute the other sentences without the required consent. The earlier surrender order had not led to physical transfer because a statutory time limit expired, which the court said was not the issuing state’s fault. As the original objection had failed for lack of evidence rather than resolution of a disputed legal proposition, the judge found no point of law to certify.
On delay, the court said delay could matter where it prejudiced a recognised legal right, but the respondent had argued that unexplained delay alone required refusal. The judge found no authority or principled argument supporting that standalone proposition and said no tenable legal question of exceptional public importance had been advanced.
The court reached a similar conclusion on the proposed oppression question. It said an objection could be considered if linked to prejudice to a recognised right, but the respondent had not made that link. The judge therefore refused to certify any of the three questions. The judgment did not reconsider or set aside the earlier surrender order.