Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Stankiewicz

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 129
• Date: 06 May 2008

[2008] IEHC 129

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 181 Ext./2007

Min for Justice v Stankiewicz

Between:

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

And

Jaroslaw Stankiewicz

Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3

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

MIN JUSTICE v SLICZYNSKI UNREP HIGH COURT 11.10.2007 EX TEMPORE

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10(d)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v TOBIN UNREP PEART 12.1.2007 2007 IEHC 15

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

EXTRADITION

European arrest warrant

Onus of proof - Whether respondent in breach of condition of suspension attaching to sentence imposed - Whether respondent fled requesting state - Whether respondent discharged onus of proof - Whether clear circumstances and facts shown to exist why order should not be made - Whether point of objection supported by cogent evidence - Minister for Justice v Tobin [2007] IEHC 15, (Unrep, Peart J, 12/1/2007) distinguished - European Arrest Warrant Act (No 45), ss 10 and 16 - Extradition granted (2007/181Ext - Peart J - 6/5/2008) [2008] IEHC 129

Minister for Justice v Stankiewicz

Facts: The applicant sought to surrender the respondent to Poland to serve the remainder of a prison sentence that had been suspended for a probation period. The respondent alleged that he had not fled Poland pursuant to s. 10 of the Act of 2003. The respondent further alleged that he was never aware that the suspension had been lifted.

Held by Peart J. that the respondent had failed to discharge the onus of rebutting the presumption that an issuing state would not seek surrender where no breach of condition existed. A heavy onus rested on those seeking to succeed. The order sought would be made.

Reporter: E.F.

1 Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 6th day of May, 2008:

2 The surrender of the respondent so that he can be returned to the Republic of Poland under a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 26 ^th September 2007. The warrant was duly endorsed here for execution by order of this Court on the 7 ^th November 2007, and the respondent was arrested on foot of same on the 23 ^rd November 2007, and brought before the Court as required by the provisions of s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended. Thereafter he was remanded from time to time pending the hearing and determination of this application.

3 His surrender is sought so that he can serve a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him on the 15 ^th January 2001, and in respect of which, according to the warrant, there is a period of one year, two months and fourteen days remaining to be served. The warrant also discloses that when this sentence was imposed on that date, it was suspended "for a probation period of five years", and that "over that period [the respondent] was to be put on probation".

4 On the 19 ^th May 2005, however, the suspension was lifted so that the sentence could be served. Further information adduced on this application shows that by reason of the fact that he committed a further offence for which he was convicted on the 18 ^th November 2004 and therefore within the probationary period of five years referred to, an application was made to lift the suspension in respect of the earlier sentence.

5 Before addressing the point of objection raised by the respondent, namely that he is not a person who comes within the provisions of s. 10 of the Act, not having in his submission, 'fled' the requesting state, I should state at the outset that I am satisfied that the respondent is the person in respect of whom this...