The High Court has ordered Grzegorz Polak’s surrender to Poland under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, after rejecting his objections concerning the warrant, delay and the impact on his family.
In a judgment delivered on 9 March 2015, Ms Justice Margaret Heneghan found that the European arrest warrant sought Mr Polak for prosecution for one alleged offence: an incident dated 14 June 2006 involving an alleged beating and the taking of a Nokia phone, an identity card and two bank cards. No sentence had been imposed for that offence. The warrant stated that the maximum sentence on conviction could be 12 years.
Polish authorities told the Irish court that Mr Polak had initially been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in March 2008, but that sentence was overturned on appeal and the case sent back for reconsideration. They said the case could not be completed because he had left Poland, and that a temporary arrest order formed the basis for the European warrant. The judgment records that Mr Polak said he had understood he had already been convicted and sentenced.
The defence argued that the warrant’s reference to Mr Polak being in Ireland with an unknown address, and the time taken to transmit the warrant, raised questions about delay. It also argued that surrender would disproportionately affect his family life and his children. The court noted there was no supporting documentary evidence for several of the claims about his work and family circumstances.
The judge found the warrant clear about the single offence and rejected the argument that additional information meant surrender was being sought for other matters. She also rejected the claim that the warrant breached section 11 of the Act.
On delay, the judge said the alleged four-and-a-half-year delay by Polish authorities could most conveniently be addressed in Poland. She was not persuaded that delay justified refusing surrender or seeking further information. She also found no material delay in the Irish proceedings, noting that a scheduled hearing in October 2014 could not proceed after Mr Polak left the court environs and he did not appear the following day.
The court concluded that Mr Polak’s private and family interests, including those of his partner and children, did not outweigh the public interest in extradition. It rejected the grounds of objection, found the requirements of section 16 had been met and ordered surrender to Poland under section 16(1).