Minister for Justice and Law Reform v Petrášek

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice Edwards
Judgment Date16 May 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] IEHC 212
CourtHigh Court
Date16 May 2012

[2012] IEHC 212

THE HIGH COURT

[Record No. No. 64 EXT/2011
No. 65 EXT/2011
No. 66 EXT/2011
Min for Justice v Petrasek
APPROVED
Mr Justice Edwards
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT, 2003 AS AMENDED
BETWEEN/
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM
Applicant
-AND-
JAN PETRÁSEK
Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S79

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S80

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S81

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S82

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S3(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (DESIGNATED MEMBER STATES) ORDER 2005 SI 27/2005 ART 2

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (DESIGNATED MEMBER STATES) ORDER 2005 SI 27/2005 SCHED

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S38

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S2

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3

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

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

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(2)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6

CONSTITUTION ART 38

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

MIN FOR JUSTICE v MCCAGUE 2010 1 IR 456 2008/41/8912 2008 IEHC 154

AG, PEOPLE v MESSITT 1972 IR 204

LAWRENCE v R 1933 AC 699

LAWLOR v DISTRICT JUDGE HOGAN & DPP 1993 ILRM 606 1993/8/2372

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BRENNAN 2007 3 IR 732 2007/40/8282 2007 IESC 21

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S4A

MIN FOR JUSTICE v MARJASZ UNREP EDWARDS 24.4.2012 2012 IEHC 233

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CO COUNCIL v B (K) & B (K) 2012 2 ILRM 170 2011 IESC 48

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 26

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 26(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 2(2)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v TIGHE UNREP SUPREME 21.12.2010 2010/34/8686 2010 IESC 61

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S32

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

PROHIBITION OF INCITEMENT TO HATRED ACT 1989 S2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S6

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

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S5

MIN FOR JUSTICE v MAREK UNREP SUPREME 5.2.2009 (EX TEMPORE)

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20

MIN FOR JUSTICE v MAREK UNREP PEART 3.2.2010 2010/35/8773 2010 IEHC 198

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10(A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10(B)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10(C)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10(D)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45C

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009 S20

CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1991 S2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S5

EXTRADITION LAW

European arrest warrant

Points of objection - Conviction warrants - Whether correspondence to offences in State's law - Whether minimum gravity - Whether breach of rights to surrender respondent where respondent convicted in absentia - Respondent previously spending time in custody on foot of earlier European arrest warrant - Whether breach of rights to surrender respondent where no benefit from time spent in custody - Whether warrant bad for ambiguity - Whether sufficient undertaking given by issuing state as to re-trial - Whether risk of increased sentence being imposed if respondent surrendered - Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Brennan [2007] IESC 21, [2007] 3 IR 732; Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Sliczynski [2008] IESC 73 (Unrep, SC, 19/12/2008); Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v McCague [2008] IEHC 154, [2010] 1 IR 456; Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Gheorge [2009] IESC 76 (Unrep, SC, 18/11/2009); Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Marek [2010] IEHC 198 (Unrep, Peart J, 3/2/2010); Nottinghamshire County Council v B(K) [2011] IESC 48 (Unrep, SC, 15/12/2011); Minister for Justice and Equality v Marjasz [2012] IEHC 233 (Unrep, Edwards J, 24/4/2012) considered - Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Tighe [2010] IESC 61 (Unrep, SC, 21/12/2010) distinguished - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 10, 16, 37, 38 & 45 - Surrender ordered (2011/64EXT; 2011/65EXT; 2011/66EXT - Edwards J - 16/5/2012) [2012] IEHC 212

Minister for Justice and Law Reform v Petrasek

Facts: The respondent, a Czech national, was the subject of a number of European Arrest Warrants (‘the Warrants’) issued in 2010 and 2-11. Following his arrest by Gardaí pursuant to the Warrants, he raised a number of general objections to the pending extradition under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as well as specific objections to the Warrants individually.

Held by Edwards J, that the Warrants would be considered in the order that submissions were made upon request by the applicant. Considering the relevant case law and constitutional provisions, the Court was satisfied that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that the objections justified refusing surrender of the respondent to the Czech authorities. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Gheorge [2009] IESC 76 followed, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Marek [2010] IEHC 198 applied. The orders would be made accordingly surrendering the respondent on all three warrants.

1

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Edwards delivered on the 16th day of May, 2012.

Introduction:
2

The respondent is the subject of three European arrest warrants issued by the Czech Republic on the 31 st December, 2010; the 18 th January, 2011; and the 20 th January, 2011, respectively. All three warrants were endorsed for execution by the High Court in this jurisdiction on the 9 th February, 2011. The respondent was arrested in execution of all three warrants by Detective Garda Geraldine Daly on the 4 th October, 2011, at Kyrls Street in Cork city. He was brought before the High Court on the following day, the 5 th October, 2011, where, in accordance with s.13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (hereinafter "the Act of 2003"), evidence of arrest was given, and a date was fixed for the purposes of s.16 of the Act of 2003. The matter was then adjourned from time to time before ultimately coming on for a s.16 hearing on the 15 th February, 2012.

3

The respondent objects to his surrender in each case. The Court is therefore put on inquiry as to whether the requirements of s.16 of the Act of 2003, both controversial and uncontroversial, have been satisfied and this Court's jurisdiction to make an order directing that the respondent be surrendered is dependant upon a judicial finding that they have been so satisfied.

4

In so far as specific points of objection are concerned, the Court is required to consider a number of specific objections to the respondent's surrender on foot of each of the European arrest warrants. These objections are by and large case specific. In the circumstances it is proposed later in this judgment to consider the specific objections pleaded in respect of each warrant separately.

Uncontroversial matters
5

The Court has before it an affidavit of arrest sworn by Detective Garda Geraldine Daly and counsel for the respondent has confirmed that no issue is being raised in any case either as to arrest or as to identity.

6

The Court has also received and scrutinised copies of the three European arrest warrants in this case. In addition, the Court has also inspected the original European arrest warrants which are on the Court's files and notes that they each bear this Court's endorsement. The Court is satisfied following consideration of this evidence and documentation that:

7

(a) All three European arrest warrants in question have been endorsed for execution in accordance with s.13 of the Act of 2003;

8

(b) All three European arrest warrants in question were duly executed and the person who was arrested and who was brought before the Court is the person in respect of whom those three European arrest warrants were issued;

9

(c) the Court is not required, under s.21A, 22, 23, or 24 (inserted by ss 79, 80, 81 and 82 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005), to refuse to surrender the respondent under the 2003 Act;

10

In addition the Court is satisfied to note the existence of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (Designated Member States) Order 2005, ( S.I. 27 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as "the 2005 Designation Order"), and duly notes that by a combination of s.3(1) of the Act of 2003, and article 2 of, and the Schedule to, the 2005 Designation Order, the "Czech Republic" is designated for the purposes of the Act of 2003 as being a state that has under its national law given effect to the Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, O.J. L 190/1, 18.7.2002.

The order in which the warrants will be considered
11

For reasons that were not explained and which the Court didn't enquire into, but at the request of the applicant, submissions were received, and the warrants were considered, in the following non-chronological order: first, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Minister for Justice v A.P.L.
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 June 2015
    ...unless he has been tried and convicted in totality in his absence.' 48 The case of Minister for Justice and Law Reform v. Petrášek [2012] IEHC 212 dealt with similar issues of lack of notification of the date of the revocation of the suspended element of a sentence. In circumstances where ......
  • Popoviciu v Curtea De Apel Bucuresti (Romania)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 2023
  • Minister for Justice v Ciesielski
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 February 2013
    ...FOR JUSTICE v MARJASZ UNREP EDWARDS 24.4.2012 2012 IEHC 233 MIN FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM v PETRASEK UNREP EDWARDS 16.5.2012 2012 IEHC 212 MIN FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM v OSTROWSKI UNREP EDWARDS 8.2.2012 2012 IEHC 57 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III EUROPEAN A......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT