The Supreme Court has dismissed Kaspars Koncis’s appeal against a High Court order for his surrender to Latvia under a third European arrest warrant relating to four alleged offences in 2004.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s order of 12 November 2008. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 29 July 2011, held that the earlier proceedings and release order did not prevent a fresh warrant for the same offences. It also declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision to admit information from the Latvian Prosecutor’s Office.
Latvian authorities first issued a warrant in December 2004 and a second in September 2005. The High Court ordered surrender on the second warrant in November 2006, but Koncis was later released under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution after the court learned that he had been convicted and sentenced in his absence for the offences. The judgment says those convictions were set aside in April 2007. A third warrant was issued in November 2007, and the High Court ordered surrender on it in November 2008.
Koncis argued that the earlier surrender order remained in force and that the time limit for surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision meant the process should have ended. He also challenged the fairness of the proceedings and the admission of a letter describing the cancellation of the Latvian convictions.
The Supreme Court said the release order did not state that the earlier High Court surrender order had been quashed. However, it held that the second warrant had been superseded by the third, and that the earlier proceedings did not create an estoppel or res judicata in Koncis’s favour. It said a further warrant for the same offences was not expressly excluded, provided the statutory procedures and fair procedures were followed. The court concluded that the history of the case was not a bar to the third warrant.
On the letter, the court noted that it had been exhibited to an affidavit from an official of Ireland’s Central Authority and that the Minister relied on section 20(2) of the 2003 Act, as amended. The Supreme Court would not interfere with the High Court’s exercise of discretion to admit the information.
The court dismissed the appeal. It also stated that Koncis had spent approximately seven months in custody in connection with the proceedings and that this time should be deducted from any sentence he might receive in Latvia, as required by the Framework Decision. The judgment left the exact custody period for counsel to address.