Judgment: 2021-06-08 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender to Poland over two prison sentences

The court rejected objections based on enforceability, prison conditions and family life, then ordered surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

High Court · [2021] IEHC 404

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Piotr Marian Mocek
  • Paul Burns (Judge)
What

The court rejected objections based on enforceability, prison conditions and family life, then ordered surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Poland
  • Leszno
  • Rawicz
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Mocek argued that the sentences were spent or unenforceable, including because he had paid compensation. The court said additional information from the Polish judicial authority showed that the payments were late and that other grounds for activating the suspended sentences applied. It dismissed this objection.

The High Court has ordered the surrender of Piotr Marian Mocek to Poland to serve the outstanding portions of two prison sentences, dismissing his objections to the request.

In a judgment delivered on 8 June 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns ruled that surrender was not precluded under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The order followed Poland’s request to enforce sentences imposed by the District Court in Leszno in 2005 and 2006. The first sentence was originally 18 months, with seven months and two days remaining; the second was 10 months, all of which remained to be served.

Mr Mocek argued that the sentences were spent or unenforceable, including because he had paid compensation. The court said additional information from the Polish judicial authority showed that the payments were late and that other grounds for activating the suspended sentences applied. It dismissed this objection.

He also objected on the basis of prison conditions in Poland. The court considered information that he would be held at the penitentiary in Rawicz, where prisoner living space was stated to be at least three square metres, subject to an exception requiring a special decision. It found no substantial reason to believe he would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and dismissed the objection.

On family life, the court accepted that Mr Mocek provided care for his partner, whose medical reports described several conditions. However, it found the evidence did not establish that the impact of his absence would justify refusing surrender. The court dismissed that objection too.

A separate objection concerning rights under Directive 2013/48 was not pursued at the hearing. The judge also declined to hear a new objection about rule-of-law issues in Poland, raised after the court had indicated it would deliver judgment. He said the issue could have been raised earlier and no explanation was given for the delay.

The court concluded that surrender was not barred by the 2003 Act and ordered Mr Mocek’s surrender to Poland under section 16.

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