The High Court has ruled that Wojciech Orlowski should be surrendered to Poland under four European arrest warrants, except in relation to one alleged drug precursor offence. Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 4 February 2021.
The warrants sought his surrender both for prosecution and to enforce existing prison sentences. The court found that the alleged possession of 50 millilitres of BMK, which the first warrant said was to be used in the prohibited production of psychotropic substances, did not have enough detail to show that the conduct would constitute an offence in Ireland. Surrender for that offence was prohibited under section 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The judgment rejected the respondent’s other objections. These included arguments that some allegations had already been finally decided in Poland, that proceedings were time-barred, and that surrender would breach his rights. On the possible overlap between charges in the first warrant and a prior Polish conviction, the court said the issue remained for the Polish courts to resolve. The issuing authority had assured the High Court that prosecution would be discontinued if the acts were found to constitute one continuous activity already covered by the conviction.
The second warrant concerned a cumulative five-year prison sentence imposed in Poland. The respondent had not attended the hearing that produced the cumulative order. The court accepted the Minister’s argument that the circumstances supported the conclusion that he either knew of the hearing and chose not to attend, or failed to take steps to ensure he received notice. It held that surrender was not prohibited by the rules on decisions made in a person’s absence.
The third warrant sought surrender for prosecution on four allegations, including threats and demands for money. The court found the alleged conduct corresponded to offences under Irish law. The fourth warrant concerned four allegations involving a criminal organisation and human trafficking. The court said no correspondence issue arose because the warrant identified the relevant offence category.
The respondent also argued that changes to Poland’s judicial system created a risk to a fair trial and to trial before a court established by law. The court acknowledged systemic concerns but found insufficient evidence of a specific, personal risk to the respondent. It therefore rejected those objections and ordered surrender for all other matters covered by the four warrants.