The High Court rejected a man’s objection to being surrendered to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant, finding that he had not provided cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that his fundamental rights were respected during his trial there.
Mr Justice Edwards said the court was satisfied that the warrant was valid and that the respondent was the person it concerned. The warrant sought his return to serve a sentence of two years and six months imposed after a conviction by the District Court of Katowice for three fraud-type offences involving 27 instances. A separate Polish warrant issued in 2009 had been withdrawn, leaving only the warrant issued on 15 March 2010 before the court.
The respondent opposed surrender under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He said he had been tried and sentenced without a lawyer, could not afford private representation and did not recall being told by a judge that he could apply for legal aid. His Polish-law expert described circumstances in which people charged with misdemeanours could face prison terms without mandatory representation, while also saying courts had discretion to grant legal aid on application.
The Minister argued that the respondent had not shown that he was denied an opportunity to seek legal aid or did not know he could apply. The respondent’s evidence was that police had advised him twice of his right to a lawyer, but he did not think he needed one at the time. He said he did not remember whether a judge later asked about representation; the court found that this did not establish that he had not been informed.
The judge accepted that a person facing a potentially significant prison sentence should have access to legal representation and, if unable to pay, state-funded legal aid that is practically accessible. He did not decide whether a trial judge must inform every accused person of that right, proceeding instead on the assumption that this might be required.
The court said surrender cases proceed on a presumption that another member state will respect the respondent’s fundamental rights. It found the evidence showed Poland had a legal-aid system and that the respondent could have applied to the trial judge, but there was no evidence he was unaware of that option or that the judge failed to tell him about it. The court therefore declined to uphold the section 37 objection and said it was disposed to make a surrender order. The judgment does not record the formal making of that order.