Minister for Justice v Radoslav Sipka

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Paul Burns
• Judgment Date: 06 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 587
• Docket Number: [2021 No. 127 EXT]
• Court: High Court

Between

Minister for Justice

Applicant

and

Radoslav Sipka

Respondent

[2021] IEHC 587

[2021 No. 127 EXT]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Paul Burns delivered on the 6th day of September, 2021

1 By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the Slovak Republic pursuant to a European arrest warrant dated 9th January, 2020 (“the EAW”). The EAW was issued by Judge Beata Sutakova, of the District Court of Presov, as the issuing judicial authority.

2 The EAW seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to enforce a sentence of ten years' imprisonment imposed upon the respondent on 14th January, 2019 and upheld on appeal on 10th October, 2019, all of which remains to be served.

3 The respondent was arrested on on foot of a Schengen Information System II alert and brought before the High Court on 18th May, 2021. The EAW was produced to the High Court on 26th May, 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 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 Section 38(1)(b) of the Act of 2003 provides that it is not necessary for the applicant to establish correspondence between an offence to which the EAW relates and an offence under the law of the State, where the offence referred to in the EAW is an offence to which Article 2.2 of the European Council Framework Decision dated 13th June, 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States, as amended (“the Framework Decision”), applies and carries a maximum penalty in the issuing state of at least three years' imprisonment. In this instance, the issuing judicial authority has certified that the offences referred to in the EAW are offences to which Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision applies, that same are punishable by a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment and has indicated the appropriate box for “swindling”. There is no manifest error or ambiguity in respect of the aforesaid certification such as would justify this Court in looking beyond same. In any event, I am satisfied that, if necessary, correspondence could be established between the offence referred to in the EAW and that an offence under the law of this State, viz. an offence of deception contrary to s. 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

8 At part D of the EAW, it is indicated that the decision issued in absentia but the normal Table D provided for by the Framework Decision has not been set out or completed. The issuing judicial authority merely indicates:-

“the person was not summoned in person nor informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision in absentia by other means; but after issuing such decision he has the following legal guarantees (these guarantees may be provided beforehand).

State the legal guarantees:”

No indication of any such legal guarantees is given in the EAW.

9 The respondent objects to surrender on the following grounds:-

• i. There is insufficient clarity as regards the number of offences to which the EAW relates and as to how the sentence of ten years was arrived at; and

• ii. Surrender is precluded by reason of s. 45 of the Act of 2003.

Lack of Clarity

10 At part E of the EAW, it is stated that it relates to one criminal offence but a number of different instances of wrongdoing are set out numbered 1 to 5. These detail different instances in which the respondent deceived persons into providing him with funds to their detriment. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that it appears that the EAW relates to more than one offence and further that it is not clear whether a separate sentence was imposed in respect of each of the alleged instances of wrongdoing so as to arrive at the sentence of ten years' imprisonment. By additional information dated 24th June, 2021, it is confirmed that the EAW relates to only one offence and that a single sentence of ten years' imprisonment was imposed in respect of that offence. From the experience of this Court, it is not unusual in other jurisdictions for offences of a similar type committed within a certain period to be treated as a single offence before the court trying such matters.

11 I am satisfied that there is no lack of clarity as regards the number of offences to which the EAW relates or the sentence in respect of which surrender of the respondent is sought. I dismiss the respondent's objections...