The High Court rejected all objections to the surrender of a man to Poland to serve the remaining portions of two sentences covering 99 offences. In its 8 May 2017 judgment, the court said it was satisfied that the statutory requirements for surrender had been met and that it could make an order. The judgment ends by stating that the court “may make” that order; it does not record that the order was made.
The central dispute concerned the third European arrest warrant (EAW) presented in the proceedings. The respondent argued that it was the same warrant withdrawn during earlier proceedings, and that allowing the case to continue was invalid or an abuse of process. The court held that the earlier warrants had been withdrawn and the corrected warrant was the one before it. It was valid for the purposes of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The warrant sought surrender to serve a 1 year and 6 month sentence for two offences and a 5 year and 4 month cumulative sentence covering 97 offences. The court found that the conduct described corresponded to offences under Irish law and that the minimum gravity requirements were met. It also noted an earlier translation error that had described a remaining sentence as nine years rather than nine months and 28 days.
The respondent challenged the warrant on the basis that he had not been present at one trial and had not instructed the lawyer who represented him. The court accepted information from the issuing judicial authority that he had been properly summonsed and represented by a privately instructed lawyer. It rejected his contrary affidavit evidence. For the other sentence, the court found that a date on the warrant was a clerical error: the cumulative sentence had been imposed on 5 April 2004, when the respondent was present, and followed his own application to combine sentences.
The court also rejected objections based on the respondent’s age when many offences were committed and his private and family life in Ireland. It found that the age-related statutory bar did not apply and that surrender was not disproportionate, weighing the public interest in serving the sentences against his family circumstances.
On abuse of process, the respondent relied on three arrests, errors in earlier warrants, delay and stress. The court found no evidence of bad faith or sufficient prejudice. It said the later arrests caused minimal interference with his liberty and the hearing had been extended by about a week. It therefore rejected all objections and concluded that it could make an order for surrender to Poland.