Minister for Justice & Equality v Radionovs
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 614 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2021 No. 360 EXT.] |
[2022] IEHC 614
[2021 No. 360 EXT.]
THE HIGH COURT
European arrest warrant – Surrender – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s. 37 – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to a European arrest warrant – Whether surrender of the respondent would be in breach of s. 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003
Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Radionovs, to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated 17th of February 2021 (the EAW). The EAW was issued by Mrs Pētersone, Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia, as the issuing judicial authority. The EAW sought the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of alleged robbery-type offences. The respondent objected to surrender, submitting that it should be refused given the inordinate delay in the requesting state seeking a European arrest warrant and taking steps to enforce same. The respondent submitted that no reason had been provided for the delay between the issuing of the warrant on the 17th of February 2021 following a court order of Zemgale District Court on the 10th of September 2020 and the offences which were alleged to have been carried out on the 11th of July 2012 and the 22nd of October 2012, respectively. The respondent submitted that the warrant did not indicate whether he was arrested for the offences or any steps the Latvian authorities took to prosecute the matter in the intervening period of in or around nine years. Further, the respondent submitted that the warrant did not refer to a period of Statute of Limitations relating to the prosecution of the offences. The respondent submitted that the proposed surrender ought to be refused pursuant to s. 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and his personal rights pursuant to Bunreacht na hÉireann in the context of the extensive unexplained delays in issuing the warrant and arresting the respondent. The respondent submitted that the surrender would be a breach of, or a disproportionate interference with, his rights pursuant to Article 8 ECHR and/or his family rights under Article 8 ECHR and/or the Constitution and/or Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, as a consequence, surrender would be in breach of s. 37 of the 2003 Act.
Held by Biggs J that numerous and significant steps were taken in relation to the proceedings leading to trial date on the 28th February 2019. She held that there was no objectionable delay from the date of the offences to the date of trial. She held that it was clear from the additional information received that any further delay from the 21st January 2020 onward, in respect of the prosecution of the proceedings, was due to the respondent: he fled the jurisdiction in flagrant breach of his obligations to the authorities; he knew that he was under a duty to remain in his place of residence and, that if he had to leave, that he was under a duty to advise the authorities of any change of address; he did not comply with those obligations and the issuing state therefore did not, and could not, have known his whereabouts. She held that the delay of six years was in relation to the pre-trial and trial process in the issuing state and was, therefore, not a matter that should concern the Court; in any event, six years in such circumstances could not amount to a delay that was so egregious that it amounted to a breach of the respondent’s fair trial rights. She was satisfied that the respondent’s situation was not beyond the norm and there were no factual circumstances which rebutted the presumption in s. 4a of the 2003 Act.
Biggs J held that the Court would make an order pursuant to s. 16 of the 2003 Act for the surrender of the respondent to the Latvian Republic.
Application granted.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs delivered on the 27 th day of July, 2022
. By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 17 th of February 2021 (“The EAW”). The EAW was issued by Mrs. S. Pētersone, Prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia, as the issuing judicial authority.
. The EAW seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of alleged Robbery-type offences.
. The respondent was arrested on 15 th of December 2021, on foot of a Schengen Information System II Alert, and brought before the High Court on 16 th of December 2021. The EAW was produced to the High Court on 21 st of December 2021.
. I am satisfied that the person before the Court, the respondent, is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued. No issue was raised in that regard.
. I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 21A, 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the Act of 2003”), arise for consideration in this application and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.
. I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements of the Act of 2003 have been met. Each of the offences in respect of which surrender of the respondent is sought carries a maximum penalty in excess of twelve months' imprisonment.
. I am satisfied that correspondence can be established between the offences referred to in the EAW and offences under the laws of this State, viz. Robbery contrary to Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Theft and Fraud Offences Act, 2001.
. Part E. of the EAW states:
“This warrant relates to in total: 2 (two) offences.
Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person:
(1) Sergejs Radionovs is being held criminally liable for committing [sic] stealing of movable property of another related to violence (robbery), in the following circumstances.
On 17 th July 2012 at about 01:00–02:00 AM, at the time not precisely determined during the pre-trial investigation, S. Radionovs, while under the influence of alcohol, was located not far from the bar “Alkoland” in Jēkabpils, Pormala iela 13, where he saw A. Kravčenoks, who came out of the bar and started to walk along M. Luteraiela, going in the direction of Draudzības aleja, S. Radionovs, acting for the purpose of enriching himself by acquiring A. Kravčenoks's [sic] movable property, ran up to the latter from behind and, in order to paralyse the affected party's will to resist the stealing of his property [sic], intentionally committed one powerful hit on A. Kravčenoks's [sic] torso, hitting him in the right side of the back, thus causing him to feel physical pain, after which he pushed the affected party on the ground. Continuing his criminal activities which he had already started, while A. Kravčenoks was still lying on the ground and tried to cover his face with both hands in order to protect himself, S. Radionovs committed several kicks — exact number of which was not precisely determined during the pre-trial investigation, but not less than two — with his leg that landed [sic] on the affected party's torso and face, thus causing him to feel physical pain and inflicting insignificant bodily injuries. Then S. Radionovs searched the pockets of A. Kravčenoks's [sic] clothes […]
In such a way, S. Radionovs, using violence, committed a robbery by stealing property belonging to A. Kravčenoks, thus causing him material loss in the amount of EUR 17.93, and also property belonging to E. Prikule, thus causing her material loss in the amount of EUR 85.37; and he also caused A. Kravčenoks to suffer physical pain and inflicted on him the following insignificant bodily injuries: subcutaneous hemorrhage [sic] in the area of his left eye, several bruises on the torso.
By his actions Sergejs Radionovs committed a criminal offence provided for by Paragraph 1 of Section 176 of the Criminal Law [sic].
(2) Sergejs Radionovs is being held criminally liable for committing stealing of movable property of another related to violence (robbery), committed in a group of persons, in the following circumstances.
On 22 October 2012 at about 21:00 o'clock, at the time not precisely determined during the pre-trial investigation, S. Radionovs and A.D., while both of them were under the influence of alcohol, were located outside the shopping centre “Aura” in Jēkabpils, Nākotnes iela 2, where they saw M. Skuja coming out of the store. S. Radionovs and A.D. — driven by a desire to acquire property, acting in a group of persons pursuant to prior agreement, for the purpose of stealing A. Kravčenoks's [sic] property — followed the latter. At the most convenient moment, when the affected party was located outside the garages of the garage cooperative “Draudzība” on Viesītes iela, S. Radionovs, acting in order to paralyse M. Skuja's will to resist the stealing of his property [sic], from behind committed one intentional kick with his leg on the area of the affected party's back and head, as a result of which M. Skuja fell on the ground. While M. Skuja was lying on the ground, A.D. — acting in a coordinated manner and abetting S. Radionovs's [sic] actions — acting in a group of persons with S. Radionovs committed together with the latter several intentional hits — exact number of hits committed by each of them was not precisely determined during the pre-trial investigation, but not less than one — kicking the affected party's torso with a leg. Then A.D., acting in order to lessen the affected party's...
To continue reading
Request your trial