Minister for Justice and Equality v Palonka

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: McKechnie J.,Charleton J.,O’Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 54
• Date: 24 March 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2019:000222

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (AS AMENDED)

AND IN THE MATTER OF SLAWOMIR VIKTOR PALONKA (DOB: 6th March 1981)

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

APPLICANT

AND

SLAWOMIR VIKTOR PALONKA

RESPONDENT

[2020] IESCDET 54

McKechnie J.

Charleton J.

O’Malley J.

S:AP:IE:2019:000222

2019 No. 195 EXT

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Respondent to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 22nd November, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 29th November, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 13th December, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 18th December, 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations:

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B. S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O’Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ directly from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published, along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Introduction

3 The applicant, who is the respondent in the proceedings, seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court directing his surrender to Poland (see Minister for Justice and Equality v. Palonka [2019] IEHC 803).

4 This is the second European Arrest Warrant to be issued by the requesting State in respect of this individual. It relates to an offence committed in 1999. The applicant argues, inter alia, that the request amounts to an abuse of process having regard to the delay and to the fact that this particular offence was not included in the earlier proceedings.

The first EAW

5 On the 30th June 2003 the District Court in Nowy Tomysl imposed a fine on Mr. Palonka for the offence of transporting just over 100g of marijuana from the Netherlands into Poland. On the 29th January 2004 the Regional Court in Poznan amended the District Court order and sentenced him to 10 months imprisonment.

6 An EAW was issued on the 6th November 2012. From the judgments it seems that that the applicant had been present in the District Court when the fine was imposed....