Minister for Justice v Szall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 17 February 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 64
• Docket Number: Record No. 334 EXT./2009
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 February 2012

[2012] IEHC 64

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 334 EXT./2009

Min for Justice v Szall

APPROVED

Mr. Justice Edwards

JUDGMENT

BETWEEN:

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND LAW REFORM

APPLICANT

AND

ROBERT SZALL

RESPONDENT

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(8)(A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 2.2

CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND ART 242(3)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960 S6

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960 S6(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960 S2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960 S3

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960 S6(1)

EXTRADITION LAW

European arrest warrant

Surrender - Offence - Correspondence - Penal provision - Statutory interpretation - Whether Polish offence corresponded to Irish offence of being unlawfully at large - Whether Irish offence related only to person temporarily released from imprisonment - Whether court should interpret provision in manner which least unfavourable to accused - Whether non-corresponding offence severable - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), s 16 - Criminal Justice Act 1960 (No 27), ss 2, 3, 6 & 60 - Surrender refused (2009/334EXT - Edwards J - 17/2/2012) [2012] IEHC 64

Minister for Justice and Equality v Szall

Facts: The respondent was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Republic of Poland in order that he might serve a composite or aggregate sentence of three years imposed on him by the Dublin District Court. An objection to surrender was based upon a lack of correspondence. One of the offences was argued by the applicant to correspond with the Irish offence of being unlawfully at large contrary to s. 6 Criminal Justice Act 1960. The respondent contended that the Act of 1960 did not apply in Poland and that whatever offence he may have committed there by not returning did not correspond with Irish law as he was not unlawfully at large and having been temporarily released under Irish law.

Held by Edwards J. that the interpretation inclined for by counsel for the respondent was probably the correct one and in cases of doubt had to resolve those doubts in favour of the respondents. The Court was not satisfied to find correspondence with the offence of being unlawfully at large contrary to s. 6(2) of the Act of 1960. The non-corresponding offence could not be severed and the Court had no option but to refuse the surrender.

Reporter: E.F.

Mr Justice Edwards

1 The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Republic of Poland on the 21st of April, 2009 in order that he might serve a composite or aggregate sentence of three years imprisonment imposed upon him by the District Court of Lublin on the 4^th of September 2008 in respect of six offences particularised in the warrant. The warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court in this jurisdiction (Peart J.) on the 17th of December, 2009. The respondent was arrested at Aston Quay, Dublin, on the 25^th of April 2011 by Garda Matt Lennon and was brought before the High Court in the normal way pursuant to s.13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2003"). At the s. 13 hearing the Court fixed a date for the purposes of s. 16 of the Act of 2003, and the respondent was admitted to bail pending his surrender hearing taking place. The matter was then adjourned from time to time until the surrender hearing was ready to proceed and ultimately the matter proceeded and was heard on the 14th of February 2011.

2 This judgment is written for the purposes of s.l6(8)(a) of the European Arrest Warrant Act2003 (hereinafter the Act of 2003) in circumstances where the Court has decided not to make an order under s. 16(1) of the Act of 2003 surrendering the respondent to the issuing state.

3 Part E of the warrant contained a description of the six offences to which the warrant related and these were numbered I to VI respectively. The issuing judicial authority had not sought to rely upon paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Framework Decision (Council Framework Decision of 13^th June, 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA)) and had not ticked a box in Part E.I. of the warrant in respect of any of the offences in question. Accordingly correspondence was required to be demonstrated in respect of all six offences. Correspondence could readily be demonstrated in the case of the offences numbered I. to V., respectively, and no objection based upon an alleged lack of...