The High Court has ordered the surrender of an anonymised respondent to Poland under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections based on his mental health and family life.
In a judgment delivered on 12 January 2015, Mr Justice Edwards directed surrender under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant seeks the respondent for prosecution for three offences involving alleged counterfeit currency and to serve outstanding parts of sentences for seven fraud or attempted-fraud offences. The court’s order permits transfer to a person authorised by Poland to receive him.
The respondent opposed surrender under section 37, arguing that his serious mental illness and risk of suicide meant he could face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also argued that separation from his family in Ireland would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life under Article 8.
The court accepted the medical evidence that the respondent had severe recurrent depression with psychotic symptoms, a history of self-harm and suicide attempts, and continuing risk of relapse and suicide. His condition had been partly stabilised through medication, psychiatric care and support from his family. The evidence also included an expert report describing problems with mental-health care and overcrowding in Polish prisons. Polish judicial authorities assured the court that the respondent would receive specialist psychiatric care, continue his medication and be placed under specialist care immediately.
On Article 3, the judge found that the prison-care evidence raised concern but did not establish a real risk that the respondent would be denied appropriate care or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The court relied in part on the assurances from the issuing judicial authority and dismissed this objection.
On Article 8, the court recognised that separation would be difficult and distressing for the respondent and his family. It weighed that impact against the public interest in surrender. The court described the offences as moderately serious and found a strong public interest in prosecution and service of the outstanding sentences. It also noted that the respondent had left Poland while on conditional release from prison. The judge concluded that surrender would not be disproportionate and dismissed the Article 8 objection.
The ruling concerns whether surrender was prohibited under the Act. The court did not determine the respondent’s guilt on the three prosecution offences; those remain matters for proceedings in Poland.