The High Court rejected a man’s objection to surrender under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Czech Republic, finding that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not prohibit his return to serve the remaining 44 months of a four-and-a-half-year sentence.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 25 July 2017, Ms Justice Donnelly said the respondent’s sole remaining objection was that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his private life because of delay. The court found that the warrant was otherwise in order and said it could make an order for his surrender to an authorised Czech representative.
The judgment records that the first warrant was issued in 2006 and transmitted to Ireland in January 2013. After requests for further information, a fresh warrant was issued in late November 2015, endorsed by the High Court on 3 October 2016, and the respondent was arrested on 7 February 2017. The court proceeded on the basis that there had been significant culpable delay by the issuing state, while noting that it had not been asked to explain the delay.
The respondent said he had lived in Ireland since around 2006, mostly in County Clare, and had worked there in hotels, restaurants and for three seasons as a golf-club greenkeeper. He was not working at the time of the hearing but had a job offer. He claimed significant, specific prejudice from the delay but, the court said, did not explain its nature. The judge found no particular impact beyond the ordinary consequences of serving a prison sentence.
The court also considered that the respondent had been present at the relevant trials and appeals and knew he faced the sentence. It concluded that he had left the Czech Republic to evade it. The offences involved fraud: one concerned transactions in 2000 and 2001, and another the fraudulent leasing of a passenger car. The judgment records alleged damage of CZK 1,573,948 and attempted further damage of CZK 140,061 in the first offence.
Weighing the delay against the seriousness of the offences, the sentence and the public interest in enforcing it, the court found that the respondent’s private interests did not outweigh the public interest. It rejected his objection; the judgment states that the court may make an order for surrender.