Minister for Justice & Equality v Grams

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs
• Judgment Date: 08 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 637
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2021 No. 306 EXT.]

Between

Minister for Justice and Equality

Applicant

and

Damian Grams

Respondent

[2022] IEHC 637

[2021 No. 306 EXT.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs delivered on the 8 ^th day of July, 2022

1 . By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Poland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 29 ^th of January 2018 (“the EAW”). The EAW was issued by Regional Judge Michal Ziemniewski, as the issuing judicial authority.

2 . The EAW seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to enforce a sentence of 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment imposed upon the respondent on the 1 ^st of February 2017. The full sentence remains to be served.

3 . The respondent was arrested on the 28 ^th of October 2021, on foot of a Schengen Information System II alert, and brought before the High Court on that day. The EAW was produced to the High Court on the 10 ^th of November 2021.

4 . 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.

5 . 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 the surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.

6 . I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements of the Act of 2003 have been met. The sentence in respect of which surrender is sought is in excess of four months' imprisonment.

7 . The details of the offence for which the respondent has been convicted are stated in Part E. The offence is defined as ‘burglary’, where the facts alleged are that the respondent, along with two others, broke into a florist's shop and caused damage.

8 . I am satisfied that correspondence can be established between the offences referred to in the EAW and the offence of burglary contrary to Section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

9 . Part D of the EAW indicates that the respondent did not appear at the trial resulting in the decision, however at Part D.1 (b), the EAW states:

“[T]he person was not summoned in person but by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he was aware of the scheduled trial and was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for the trial.”

10 . The warrant goes on to indicate that the respondent was notified of the court hearing by summons to his last known address, where the summons was deemed delivered by “substitute delivery”.

11 . A Section 20 request was sent to the issuing state by this Court on the 12 ^th of November 2021, seeking clarification regarding Section D of the warrant and the requirements of Section 45 of the 2003 Act.

12 . The Court received a reply to the Section 20 request on the 25 ^th of November 2021, which indicated that the respondent was aware of the court date, as it was delivered to him by registered mail, and it was hand delivered to him.

13 . The information contained in the additional information allows this Court to conclude that the respondent was served with the notification of the trial “in person” and therefore the requirements of Section 45 of the 2003 Act, have been complied with.

14 . The respondent objected to surrender on the following grounds:

1 . The warrant fails to comply with Section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 in...