The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Poland to serve a 1 year and 6 month prison sentence, rejecting his argument that the court needed further information about why a previously suspended sentence had been activated.
In a judgment delivered on 25 June 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns made the order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant sought the respondent’s surrender to serve a sentence imposed following convictions for stealing telecommunications cable on a number of dates.
The sentence was imposed by the District Court in Miedzyrzecz on 19 November 2013 and suspended for five years’ probation. The European arrest warrant said the respondent had appeared in person at that trial. A decision of the District Court in Szamotuly on 10 November 2016 activated the sentence.
The respondent objected to surrender under section 45 of the Act, which concerns trials in absentia. In an affidavit, he said the warrant did not explain why the suspension had been lifted and asked the court to seek that information. He also said he hoped the suspension could be re-imposed.
His counsel argued that the reason for activation was needed before the court could order surrender. The Minister for Justice and Equality submitted that the warrant was properly completed and that an inquiry was unnecessary because the respondent had attended the original trial and the later decision had not changed the sentence.
Justice Burns relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Minister for Justice and Equality v Lipinski, which considered the effect of a person’s absence from proceedings revoking a suspended sentence. The judgment referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling in Samet Ardic: such revocation proceedings are not part of the “trial resulting in the decision” for the European arrest warrant rules, provided the revocation does not change the nature or level of the original sentence.
The High Court concluded that the Polish decision activated the original sentence without variation. It said nothing before it suggested the revocation was for a reason other than breach of probation, and the respondent had not proposed another or improper reason. The judge said any request to have the suspension re-imposed was a matter for the Polish court system and outside the High Court’s jurisdiction.
The court found section 45 did not apply, and that surrender was not prohibited under the Act. It ordered surrender to Poland. The judgment does not state that the respondent was surrendered or that any further steps occurred after the order.