Judgment: 2010-06-11 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender over Polish drink-driving sentence

The court rejected an objection that the Polish conviction did not correspond to an Irish offence under road traffic law and ordered surrender to serve an eight-month sentence.

High Court · [2010] IEHC 242

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Krzysztof Serdiuk (Respondent)
  • Michael Peart (Judge)
What

The court rejected an objection that the Polish conviction did not correspond to an Irish offence under road traffic law and ordered surrender to serve an eight-month sentence.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Wroclaw
  • Poland
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 5 October 2004

    The sentence was originally two years’ imprisonment and was later reduced to eight months, which the judgment said met the minimum gravity requirement. The warrant described the offence as driving in Wroclaw on 5 October 2004 while under the influence of alcohol. Additional information put the blood alcohol level at 310 milligrams per 100 millilitres, compared with an Irish limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge accepted that the warrant did not say when or how Serdiuk was tested, or what his alcohol level was at any point up to three hours after driving. But he interpreted section 49(2) as addressing a person who drives with enough alcohol in their body that the concentration will exceed the limit within that period. Since the Polish conviction concerned a level of 310 milligrams per 100 millilitres at the time of driving, he found the conduct would also constitute an offence in Ireland.

The High Court has ordered the surrender of Krzysztof Serdiuk to Poland to serve an eight-month prison sentence for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled on 11 June 2010 that the Polish conviction corresponded to an offence under section 49(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended. That Irish provision concerns driving with a level of alcohol in the body that would result in a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit within three hours after driving.

Poland sought surrender under a European arrest warrant issued on 8 December 2009. The High Court endorsed the warrant for execution on 24 February 2010, and Serdiuk was arrested on 12 April 2010. The judgment said he had been remanded from time to time while the surrender application was considered.

The sentence was originally two years’ imprisonment and was later reduced to eight months, which the judgment said met the minimum gravity requirement. The warrant described the offence as driving in Wroclaw on 5 October 2004 while under the influence of alcohol. Additional information put the blood alcohol level at 310 milligrams per 100 millilitres, compared with an Irish limit of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres.

The respondent’s objection focused on the wording of the Irish offence. His barrister, Mr Farrell, argued that the warrant did not establish the alcohol level within the three-hour period referred to in section 49(2), and that the Polish allegation concerned the level at the time of driving. The Minister’s barrister, Mr McGrath, submitted that the relevant question was whether the level at the time of driving exceeded the Irish limit.

The judge accepted that the warrant did not say when or how Serdiuk was tested, or what his alcohol level was at any point up to three hours after driving. But he interpreted section 49(2) as addressing a person who drives with enough alcohol in their body that the concentration will exceed the limit within that period. Since the Polish conviction concerned a level of 310 milligrams per 100 millilitres at the time of driving, he found the conduct would also constitute an offence in Ireland.

The court said it was satisfied that Serdiuk was the person named in the warrant and that no statutory ground identified in the judgment prohibited surrender. It therefore ordered surrender. The judgment records that no undertaking under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, was required.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review