The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Poland to serve the remaining terms of two prison sentences, after dismissing his objections under Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns considered a European arrest warrant issued on 11 December 2006 by a Polish judicial authority. The warrant sought surrender for two sentences: one with one year, eight months and eight days remaining, and another with one year, 11 months and 21 days remaining. The warrant had been endorsed in Ireland in January 2015, and the man was brought before the High Court in April that year.
The respondent did not challenge the Irish-law correspondence of most offences covered by the sentences. He argued, however, that one Polish offence, described as an offence against the institution of family and guardianship, had no equivalent under Irish law and that surrender for the second sentence was therefore barred.
The Minister submitted that the court should assess the conduct described in the warrant rather than compare the names of the offences. Justice Burns agreed. The warrant described alleged psychological and physical abuse of family members, including fights and insults, damage to a home’s windows and furniture, and physical attacks that caused injuries. The judge concluded that the conduct would amount to assault, assault causing harm and criminal damage if committed in Ireland, and dismissed the correspondence objection.
The respondent also argued that surrender would unjustifiably interfere with his private and family life. His submissions referred to the passage of time, his life and employment in Ireland, and a daughter born in Ireland in 2009. The Minister argued that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for refusing surrender and noted that the respondent did not live with his daughter.
The judge rejected the respondent’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in *Minister for Justice and Equality v Vestartas*. He said it did not establish that surrender must always be refused where an issuing state had not shown a sentence review mechanism. A respondent would first have to provide cogent evidence of a real risk to Article 8 rights, he said. In this case, Justice Burns found no such evidence and concluded that the delay and personal circumstances fell well short of the exceptional or egregious circumstances needed to refuse surrender.
The court dismissed both objections, found surrender was not prohibited under Part Three of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, and ordered surrender to Poland under section 16 of the Act. The judgment records the order; it does not establish whether or when surrender was carried out.