The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Piotr Pawel Skiba over an order setting a new date for his surrender to Poland, where he was to serve two prison sentences. The court held that his refusal to board a commercial flight was not reasonably foreseeable on the information available to Irish authorities, and amounted to circumstances beyond the State’s control under the applicable legal test.
The appeal concerned the failed surrender attempt on 22 December 2016. Mr Skiba had been ordered surrendered by the High Court earlier that month. His solicitor told Gardaí that he feared flying, and Irish authorities raised the issue with Polish officials. They discussed alternative travel arrangements, but the original flight plan went ahead. At Dublin Airport, Mr Skiba refused to proceed beyond the departure gate. The airline captain would not allow him aboard, and he was returned to prison.
The Minister for Justice applied to the High Court to set a new surrender date. The judge fixed 5 January 2017, finding that the failed attempt resulted from circumstances beyond the State’s control. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Skiba’s challenge, and he was surrendered to Poland on 14 January 2017. He then obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on whether the Court of Appeal’s decision remained correct in light of a later EU Court of Justice ruling in the Vilkas case.
The Supreme Court said the EU ruling required “circumstances beyond the control” in the relevant Irish legislation to be read as force majeure. That test required abnormal circumstances outside the authorities’ control, which were not reasonably foreseeable and whose consequences could not have been avoided despite due care. The court said the High Court had used a different interpretation, but assessed the issue itself because the High Court had not considered foreseeability and the case could not practicably be sent back after Mr Skiba’s surrender.
The judges considered the solicitor’s report of a fear of flying, the lack of supporting detail or evidence, and Mr Skiba’s conduct before reaching the departure gate. They concluded that the report did not make his refusal to board reasonably foreseeable. While overland travel was available, the court said authorities were not required to arrange it without a reasonably foreseeable prospect that air surrender would fail.
The court held that the conditions for fixing a new surrender date had been met and dismissed the appeal. It did not decide what “discharged” means under the separate statutory provision that applies if force majeure is not established; it said that issue did not arise in this case.