The High Court ordered Arnošt Herman’s surrender to the Czech Republic under three European arrest warrants, rejecting his objections, including a claim that the third warrant would expose him to double jeopardy.
Mr Justice Edwards said on 28 March 2014 that surrender was appropriate under all three warrants. The first sought his return to serve the remaining portion of a six-year prison sentence imposed in 2010. The second sought his return for prosecution on three offences. The third sought his return for prosecution over 11 alleged partial attacks, including eight incidents also covered by the first warrant and three further incidents.
The court accepted information from the Czech judicial authority that the six-year sentence under the first warrant remained final, enforceable and in force. A later seven-year sentence had been imposed in a judgment that was not final and had been cancelled on appeal. The court said it was satisfied that the respondent could be surrendered under the first and second warrants and that no statutory or other identified ground required refusal.
The third warrant raised a more complex issue. The Czech authority explained that Czech law treats related partial attacks as a continuing offence. If Herman were convicted of the additional attacks, the court there could set aside the earlier conviction and sentence and impose a joint sentence covering the earlier and new attacks. Any time already served would be credited, and the new sentence could not be lighter than the original one.
Herman argued that the overlapping warrants and proceedings breached double-jeopardy protections and fair-procedure principles. The High Court found that he had not been acquitted or discharged in relation to the three further attacks. It held that the existing conviction did not count as a “final judgment” for the purposes of section 41 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as interpreted consistently with EU law, because the Czech process could reopen it if he were convicted on the additional attacks.
The court relied on the Czech authority’s assurance that Herman would not face two final, enforceable judgments for the same acts or serve two sentences for them. It also noted that the Czech court would be bound by the earlier factual findings about the attacks covered by the existing conviction.
The High Court considered whether to limit surrender under the third warrant to the three new matters, but declined because the warrant concerned a single continuing offence under Czech law. It ordered surrender for all matters covered by that warrant, as well as the first and second warrants. The court found no other statutory, speciality or Part 3 issue that required refusal.