Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Krzysztof Serdiuk

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 242
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 53 Ext./2010
• Court: High Court
• Date: 11 June 2010

[2010] IEHC 242

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 53 Ext./2010

Min for Justice v Serdiuk

Between:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

And

Krzysztof Serdiuk

Respondent

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(1)

EXTRADITION

European Arrest Warrant

Correspondence - Road traffic offence - Objection - Whether correspondence with offence in state - Whether surrender should be ordered - Road Traffic Act 1961 (???) s 49 - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45) s 45 - Surrender ordered (2010/53Ext - Peart J - 11/6/2010) [2010] IEHC 242

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Serdiuk

Facts The proceedings concerned an application on behalf of the Polish authorities for the extradition of the respondent to Poland. The respondent was convicted of a road traffic offence in Poland and was sentenced to two years imprisonment (subsequently reduced to eight months). Counsel for the respondent sought to distinguish the offence in Poland and the corresponding offence in Ireland. It was submitted that there was no evidence that there was alcohol in the respondent's body three hours after so driving, the only allegation that the driver was over the limit 'at the time of driving' and accordingly the ingredients of the offence put forward for correspondence were absent.

Held by Peart J in granting the application for an order of surrender. It was clear that an offence was committed that alcohol over the permitted level was present in the body up to three hours after driving. If that level still exists up to three hours after driving it was safe to assume that at the time of driving there was more than that level. The application would be granted.

Reporter: R.F.

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The surrender of the respondent is sought by a judicial authority in Poland on foot of a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 8^th December 2009. That warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court on the 24^th February 2010, and in due course the respondent was arrested on the 12^th April 2010 and, as required, was brought before the High Court from where he has been remanded from time to time pending the determination of this application for his surrender to be concluded.

2 Surrender is sought so that the respondent can be returned in order to serve a sentence of eight months' imprisonment which was imposed upon him in respect of one offence of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The sentence imposed was originally one of 2 years but this was later reduced to eight months, which satisfies minimum gravity.

3 The warrant indicates that he drove while there was in his body a quantity of 3,100 mgs of alcohol per one litre of blood. This translates into 310 mgs. of alcohol per 100 mls. of blood. The equivalent limit under s. 49 (2) of the 1961 Act is 80 mgs. per 100 mls. of blood. The equivalent limit under s. 49 (2) of the 1961 Act is 80 mgs. per 100 mls. of blood.

4 The only issue raised by way of objection on the respondent's behalf relates to the question of correspondence with an offence in this State under s. 49 (2) of the Road Traffic Act,1961, as amended "("RTA"), so I will return to that issue shortly.

5 I am satisfied that the person before the Court is the person in respect of whom this warrant has been issued.

6 No undertaking is required to be provided under s. 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act,2003, as amended.

7 I am satisfied that there is no reason to refuse to order surrender by reason of any provision of sections 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act, and subject to addressing the question as to correspondence, I am satisfied that surrender is not prohibited by any provision of Part III of the Act or the...