The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Poland on five of seven offences in a European Arrest Warrant, refusing surrender on the remaining two.
In a judgment delivered on 13 May 2010, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the warrant had issued in Poland on 24 September 2007 and was endorsed for execution in Ireland by the High Court on 13 May 2009. The respondent was arrested on 19 August 2009 and remanded pending the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s application for surrender.
The seven offences included two for which the respondent had already been convicted and sentenced, and others for which Poland sought his return for prosecution. The court accepted that the two convictions corresponded to Irish road traffic offences: one under the Road Traffic Act 1961, and one for driving without a licence. It said the minimum gravity requirement was met for both. No issue was raised about correspondence for those offences, and the court said no undertaking was required because the convictions were not said to have occurred in the respondent’s absence.
The disputed issues concerned offence C(ii) and offence D in paragraph E of the warrant. C(ii) alleged that, on 27 November 2005 in Stara Wisnlowa, the respondent insulted named police officers with vulgar and scurrilous words while they were on duty. The possible Irish equivalent put forward was breach of the peace under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The judge found no corresponding offence in Ireland and refused surrender on that allegation.
Offence D alleged possession without permission of a gas pistol, without the required licence, in Gorzow Wielkopolski on 27 February 2006. Submissions addressed whether the pistol could qualify as a firearm, but the judge noted that the respondent was not named in the allegation. The additional information did not clarify the omission. He therefore refused surrender on offence D and found it unnecessary to decide the firearm-definition question.
The court ordered surrender only for offences A, B, C(i), C(iii) and C(iv) in paragraph E. It did not order surrender for C(ii) or D. The judgment does not determine the respondent’s guilt on the offences for which prosecution was sought.