The High Court has ordered the surrender of Alan Majewski to Poland to serve a 10-month prison sentence imposed in 2003, finding that he “fled” Poland within the meaning of section 10(d) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2001.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 15 June 2010, concerned a Polish warrant seeking Mr Majewski’s surrender. The sentence had initially been suspended for three years. A Polish court activated it in November 2006 after finding that he had evaded probation and failed to meet obligations connected with his supervision.
Two issues were contested. First, the respondent argued that the warrant did not provide enough detail to show that the alleged theft corresponded to an offence in Ireland. The warrant said that on 13 May 2001 in Poznan he aided a minor in stealing a mountain bike worth PLN 200, to the detriment of a named person, by helping him reach the place where the crime occurred.
The court accepted the applicant’s submission that the conduct corresponded to aiding and abetting an indictable offence under section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. Relying on a previous High Court judgment, it held that “stealing” could be understood in its ordinary sense in the context described by the warrant. The judge noted that the warrant gave no further detail about the act of theft itself.
Second, the respondent said he had told his probation officer he planned to travel to Ireland for work and understood that travel would not breach his probation. The Polish judicial authority supplied the 2006 ruling, which stated that he had been told to inform the court, but did not do so. It also recorded that the probation officer learned from his father that he had left Poland and had not received a response to a request for his residence and expected return date.
The High Court accepted that the respondent had told his probation officer of his intention to travel, but found that he had not provided specific travel or residence details and had been required to inform the court. It said the judicial authority’s account prevailed in the absence of objective evidence casting real doubt on it. The judge concluded that the respondent left in breach of known probation conditions and was evading justice for the purpose of section 10(d).
The court said there was no reason to refuse surrender under sections 21A, 22, 23 or 24, and that surrender was not prohibited by Part III of the Act or the Framework Decision. It ordered surrender. The judgment records the order; it does not describe the subsequent execution of the surrender.