The High Court dismissed a preliminary challenge to its jurisdiction in a European arrest warrant case and ordered the respondent’s surrender to Poland to serve an aggregate two-year prison sentence.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 25 July 2012, concerned a warrant issued by Poland on 27 June 2011. The respondent had been arrested in Dublin on 5 December 2011 and brought before the High Court the following day. The court set the matter down for a surrender hearing under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.
At the hearing on 24 July 2012, the respondent’s counsel sought an adjournment and raised a preliminary objection. Relying on Garda Darren Reid’s affidavit, counsel argued that the respondent had not been informed of his statutory rights until 6.15pm at a Garda station, although the arrest had taken place at 4.20pm in St Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre. Counsel argued that the delay invalidated the arrest and subsequent proceedings, and that the respondent should be released.
The Minister’s counsel submitted that the Act did not expressly require rights information to be given “forthwith”. She also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Shaw*, arguing that an arrest initially unlawful for a failure to meet legal requirements could become lawful once those requirements were met. The court noted that Garda Reid had given evidence at the respondent’s first court appearance, without cross-examination, and that the arrest issue had not been raised then.
Mr Justice Edwards refused the adjournment. He found that the point had been raised late, was not pleaded, and had no reasonable prospect of success in light of the *Shaw* principle. He dismissed the preliminary objection to jurisdiction and to surrender. The judgment records that, after rejecting the preliminary issue, the court heard the substantive surrender application and was not disposed to uphold the respondent’s substantive objections. It therefore made an order under section 16(1) surrendering him to Poland. The ruling addressed the challenge before the court; it did not determine any separate claim about evidence gathered during the period before rights were explained.