The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Poland under the European Arrest Warrant Act after rejecting his challenges to a Polish warrant seeking enforcement of prison sentences imposed for 10 offences.
In a judgment delivered on 15 April 2011, Mr Justice Edwards found that the warrant was enforceable and met the statutory requirements. The man had not consented to surrender. The order was made under section 16 of the 2003 Act.
The warrant related to three Polish case files. The sentences were imposed between 2001 and 2004 by courts in Elbląg. The man argued that all three sentences had been suspended and that he had not been told they were reactivated. He also said he had complied with the conditions he knew about, including monthly contact with his probation officer.
The issuing judicial authority supplied further information stating that the sentences had been ordered into effect after failures to meet conditions. These included failing to pay compensation, committing a similar offence during a probation period, and evading probation supervision or failing to report a change of address. The High Court considered the respondent’s claims alongside that information. It found his assertions about reactivation and notice were not supported by independent evidence and did not justify looking behind the warrant.
The respondent also argued that the warrant did not satisfy requirements concerning minimum gravity and correspondence between the alleged conduct and offences under Irish law. The court rejected those objections. It found the relevant offences met the minimum gravity thresholds and that the non-ticked offences concerning drugs corresponded to offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.
A further objection concerned whether the man had “fled” Poland, a requirement under the version of section 10 applicable to this case. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that he had left Poland to evade justice and avoid serving the sentences. It relied on information that he had been present at relevant hearings and knew the conditions attached to the suspended sentences, and found that he had not produced cogent evidence to support his claim that he did not flee.
The judgment records that the court was satisfied as to the identity of the person before it and the warrant’s endorsement for execution. It concluded that none of the respondent’s objections should be upheld and ordered surrender. The judgment does not record the date on which surrender took place.