The High Court ruled that legal objections did not prevent the surrender of a Polish man sought to serve prison sentences in Poland, but the available judgment extract does not include an operative order directing surrender.
In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2011, Mr Justice John Edwards considered an application by the Minister for Justice under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The respondent did not consent to surrender. The warrant sought his return to serve outstanding terms arising from four Polish cases involving eight offences. The court said the sentences ranged from eight months to one year and two months.
The court found that the statutory requirements it described as uncontroversial were met, including that the man before it was the person named in the warrant, that the warrant had been endorsed for execution and that the offences met correspondence and minimum-gravity requirements. It also found that the respondent had fled Poland, within the meaning of the applicable version of section 10(d), to evade justice and avoid serving the sentences.
That finding followed conflicting accounts. The respondent said he had left Poland openly to find work and begin a new life, and that his probation officer knew of and approved his departure. Polish judicial information said he had failed to keep the authorities informed of his address, had not collected or received notices concerning hearings to revoke suspended sentences, and had not reported to serve the resulting terms. The judge found the respondent’s account not credible and said the evidence established flight on the balance of probabilities. The judgment did not determine whether he had breached the suspension conditions; it found prima facie evidence of breaches.
The respondent argued that hearings revoking the suspended sentences were trials held in his absence, so section 45 barred surrender without an undertaking that he would receive rehearings. The court rejected that argument, following a binding High Court precedent that a sentencing hearing is not a trial for section 45. It held that a sentence-revocation hearing likewise fell outside the section. It added that, even if the hearings could count as trials, evidence showed notices had been sent to the respondent’s last known address, and he could not complain of non-notification after failing to update his address or collect correspondence.
The court also rejected his claim that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The respondent said he had a young daughter and feared losing contact with her. The judge accepted that surrender would interfere with family life but found it lawful, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, necessary and proportionate.
The concluding passage says surrender was not prohibited by Part 3 of the 2003 Act or the Framework Decision. The extract ends there and does not state whether the court made the requested section 16 surrender order.