Min for Justice v Mazurkiewicz

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 377
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 132 Ext./2008
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 December 2008

[2008] IEHC 377

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 132 Ext./2008

Min for Justice v Mazurkiewicz

Between

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

And

Janusz Mazurkiewicz

Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

POLISH PENAL CODE ART 280 PARA 1

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S14

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S2

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S4

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S4(5)

MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS v DUNKOVA UNREP PEART 30.5.2008 2008 IEHC 156

MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS v WROBLEWSKI UNREP PEART 9.7.2008 2008 IEHC 263

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S164

EXTRADITION

European arrest warrant

Single offence - Minimum gravity - Correspondence - Point of objection - Whether facts in warrant disclose two possible offences within jurisdiction - Assault - Robbery - Absence of words âÇÿdishonestly' in warrant - Whether facts sufficient to establish correspondence - Minister for Justice v Dunkova [2008] IEHC 156 (Unrep, Peart J, 30/5/2008) and Minister for Justice v Wroblewski [2008] IEHC 263 (Unrep, Peart J, 9/7/2008) considered - Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (No 26), s 3 - Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No 50), s 14 - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), s 13 - Surrender ordered (2008/132EXT - Peart J - 17/12/2008) [2008] IEHC 377

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Mazurkiewicz

Facts: The surrender of the respondent was sought by the authorities in Poland for offences against property in Poland. The respondent submitted that the facts as disclosed in the warrant fell short of establishing all of the ingredients of the offences of robbery. The respondent contended that no evidence of dishonesty existed on the facts.

Held by Peart J. that the facts were sufficient to show the use of force when the property was taken. The order for surrender would be made.

Reporter: E.

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The surrender of the respondent is sought y a judicial authority in Poland under a European arrest warrant issued there on the 25^th October 2007. That warrant was endorsed for execution here by the High Court on the 9^th July 208, and the respondent was duly arrested here on foot of same on the 15^th August 2008, and brought before the High Court as required by s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended ("the Act"), after which he was remanded from time to time pending the hearing of the present application for his surrender.

2 His surrender is sought so that he can be prosecuted for one offence described as an "offence against property" which is contrary to Article 280, paragraph 1 of the Polish Penal Code, which satisfies the minimum gravity requirement under the Framework Decision and the Act.

3 The facts giving rise to the alleged offence are set forth in paragraph E of the warrant as follows:-

"On 23^rd November 2004, acting jointly and in concert with [2 named persons], the requested person mugged Janusz Karkut in such a way that by using violence involving holding the aggrieved party's arms, they went through his pockets and stole his wallet with around PLN 400 cash and a case with an Alcatel mobile phone worth PLN 650, all for the total amount of PLN 1090."

4 No issue is raised by the respondent as to his identity, and I am satisfied from the affidavit evidence of the arresting Garda officer, Sgt, James Kirwan that the person whom he arrested and is before the Court as outlined above is the person in respect of whom this warrant has been issued.

5 There is no reason to refuse to order surrender under any of sections 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act, and, subject to reaching a conclusion in relation to correspondence, the respondent's surrender is not prohibited by any provision of Part III of the Act or the Framework Decision.

...