Min for Justice v G (RP)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 54
• Date: 18 July 2013

[2013] IEHC 54

THE HIGH COURT

Record No.: 340 Ext./2009

Min for Justice v G (RP)

APPROVED

Mr. Justice Edwards

JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003

Between/

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Applicant

-AND-

R.P.G.

Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA ART 2 PARA 2

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S38(1)(B)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (DESIGNATED MEMBER STATES)(NO.3) ORDER SI 206/2004

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S3(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S18

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S2

MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S3

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S6

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S49

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S38

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S38(1)(A)(II)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v TOBIN (NO.1) 2008 4 IR 42

MIN FOR JUSTICE v CIECHANOWICZ UNREP EDWARDS 18.3.2011 2011/36/10025 2011 IEHC 106

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)(A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(2)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 8

MIN FOR JUSTICE v SLICZYNSKI UNREP SUPREME 19.12.2008 2008/42/9026 2008 IESC 73

LEOPARDSTOWN CLUB LTD v TEMPLEVILLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD UNREP EDWARDS 29.1.2010

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BEDNARCZYK UNREP EDWARDS 5.4.2011 2011/36/9982 2011 IEHC 136

R (F-K) v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY 2013 1 AC 338

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

MIN FOR JUSTICE v E (T) UNREP EDWARDS 19.6.2013 2013 IEHC 323

MIN FOR JUSTICE v M (N) UNREP EDWARDS 25.6.2013 2013 IEHC 322

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GORMAN 2010 3 IR 583

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GHEORGHE UNREP SUPREME 18.11.2009 2009/39/9656 2009 IESC 76

LAUNDER v UK 1997 25 EHRR CD 67

KING v UK UNREP APPLICATION NO. 9742/07 26.1.2010

BABAR AHMAD & ORS v UK 2012 ECHR 609

HUANG v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2007 AC 167

JASO & ORS v CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (NO.2) MADRID 2007 AER 211

NORRIS v GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (NO.2) 2010 2 AC 487

H (Z)(TANZANIA) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2011 2 AC 166

R (H H) & P (H) v DEPUTY PROSECUTOR OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, GENOA ASLO R (F-K) v POLISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY 2012 1 AC 338

MIN FOR JUSTICE v OSTROWSKI UNREP SUPREME 15.5.2013 2013 IESC 24

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA RECITAL 10

TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 6(1)

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA RECITAL 12

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA RECITAL 13

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA ART 1(2)

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 2002/584/JHA ART 1(3)

RADU, IN RE CASE 396/11 29.1.2013

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 6

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 47

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 48

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 7

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 24

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 3

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 4

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S2

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S4

AGBONLAHOR v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2007 4 IR 309

R (RAZGAR) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2004 2 AC 368

NEULINGER v SWITZERLAND 2010 ECHR 1053

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD ART 3(1)

CHILDREN ACT 2004 S11

BORDERS CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION ACT 2009 S55

CONSTITUTION ART 40

CONSTITUTION ART 41

O (A) & L (D) v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2003 1 IR 1

R (MAHMOOD) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2001 1 WLR 840

CONSTITUTION ART 42

UNER v THE NETHERLANDS 2006 45 EHRR 421

DA SILVA, HOOGKAMER v THE NETHERLANDS 2006 44 EHRR 729

NUNEZ v NORWAY UNREP 28.6.2011 2011 ECHR 1047

ANTWI v NORWAY 2012 ECHR 259

SHAKUROV v RUSSIA APPLICATION NO. 55822/10 5.6.2012

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 8(2)

CONSTITUTION ART 42(A)

ABDULAZIZ v UK 1985 7 EHRR 471

JACOBS & WHITE THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2002

R (BERMINGHAM) v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE 2007 QB 727

R (H (H)) v CITY OF WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT 2011 ACD 94 2011 EWHC 1145 (ADMIN)

B v DISTRICT COURT IN TRUTNOV & DISTRICT COURT IN LIBEREC (TWO CZECH JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES) UNREP 15.4.2011 2011 EWHC 963 (ADMIN)

CHILDREN ACT 2004 S11

BORDERS CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION ACT 2009 S55

MIN FOR JUSTICE v L (D) 2012 1 ILRM 270

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 24(2)

CONSTITUTION ART 29

O LAIGHLEIS, IN RE 1960 IR 93

Extradition – European arrest warrant - Surrender - Proportionality - Evasion of justice - Disruption to family life - Corresponding offence - Conviction in absentia - Public interest - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 - European Convention on Human Rights - Constitution of Ireland

Facts: The respondent was the subject of a European arrest warrant that was issued by Poland on the 28 ^th May 2009, issued so that he could be prosecuted in respect of 16 offences and serve 4 sentences in respect of 8 other offences. Although he was a Polish national, he had been residing in Ireland since 2006 with his family. He refused to surrender to Polish authorities and so the applicant brought the matter before the court seeking an order to that effect, pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (‘the Act of 2003’).

It was not disputed by the respondent that the prosecution offences outlined in the European arrest warrant corresponded sufficiently to various Irish offences. He did, however, argue that the warrant should be rejected pursuant to s. 45 of the Act of 2003 because it incorrectly stated that he had not been convicted of any of the conviction offences in absentia - he had not been present at the determination of one of them, namely a road traffic offence. He also denied that he had fled the country to evade justice, which the applicant was required to prove pursuant to s.10 of the Act of 2003. It was undisputed that he had been charged with one of the prosecution offences in 2003, and he initially attended court in respect of this charge when required. However, his attendances suddenly ceased in 2006 when he came to Ireland. The applicant explained that because the matter was still not resolved by 2006, he left Poland at this time assuming that proceedings were at an end. Finally, the respondent contented that he should not be surrendered to Poland because it would be in breach of his Constitution and European Convention rights. The respondent had been resident in Ireland for several years during which time he had developed strong family and community ties. On that basis, and pursuant to S. 37(1)(a) of the Act of 2003, it was argued that the court should not surrender him to Polish authorities as it would be disproportionate to do so. Two psychological reports were submitted on the respondent”s behalf in support of this point which outlined the likely effects the respondent”s surrender would have on the lives of his two children.

Held by Edwards J that in regards to the first point of objection, correspondence from Polish authorities made it clear that the respondent had not attended court in regards to the road traffic offence despite the fact he clearly knew of the date and time his case was to be heard, as evidenced by the fact that he collected the court summons in person. On the second objection, it was said that the Court did not think the respondent had been candid in his explanation. It was held that it was simply not credible that the respondent considered it acceptable to leave Poland in circumstances where proceedings were clearly ongoing. There was certainly a delay in prosecuting the respondent in respect of the charge, but there was nothing that could objectionably have been taken as an indication that proceedings were at an end. The Court also determined that the fact that the respondent had collected the court summons in relation to the aforementioned road traffic offence in person yet went to Poland prior to the matter being brought before the Polish court, was evidence that he had in fact fled Poland to evade justice.

On the final point of objection, it was held that the Court had no doubt that the respondent”s surrender to Polish authorities would possibly be very distressing to his children. However, this consideration had to be weighed against the public interest considerations applicable to the case. It was noted that because the respondent fled Poland to evade justice, and because the existence of European Warrant Act 2003 was well publicised throughout the European Union, the respondent had no reason to consider his position in Ireland as anything but precarious, despite the fact he started a family. Further, it was pointed out that the psychological reports failed to consider how relocation of the respondent”s partner and children could help ease the distressing effects his surrender would cause. For all of the above reasons, it was said that the arguments advanced by the respondent in this regard were not sufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in favour of extradition.

Respondent surrendered to Polish authorities under the European Arrest, pursuant to s. 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

1 JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Edwards delivered on the 18th day of July 2013

Introduction:

2 The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by Poland on the 28 ^th of May, 2009. The warrant was endorsed by the High Court for execution in this jurisdiction on the 26 ^th of August, 2009, and it was duly executed on the 22 ^nd of May, 2012. The respondent was arrested by Detective Sergeant J.W. on that date and he was brought before the...