MJELR -v- Malek,  IEHC 152 (2009)
|Docket Number:||2008 70 EXT|
|Party Name:||MJELR, Malek|
THE HIGH COURT2008 70 EXT
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORMAPPLICANTAND
MAREK MALEKRESPONDENTJudgment of Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 1st day of April 2009:
The surrender of the respondent is sought by a judicial authority in Poland under a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 2nd August, 2007. That warrant was endorsed for execution here by the High Court on the 16th April, 2008, and the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same on the 1st December, 2008, and, as required by s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, was brought before the High Court from where he was remanded from time to time pending the determination of this application for an order for his surrender.
No issue is raised as to the identity of the respondent and I am satisfied from the affidavit of Sgt. Martin O'Neill who arrested him on the 1st December, 2008 that he is the person in respect of whom this European arrest warrant has been issued.
The respondent's surrender is sought so that he can serve a sentence of imprisonment which was imposed on him following conviction for two offences committed on the 20th December, 2001. The sentence so imposed was for a period of two years and six months imprisonment. Minimum gravity is therefore satisfied. The entire of that sentence remains to be served.
No undertaking under s. 45 of the Act is required as the respondent was present for his trial, conviction and sentence.
The warrant states that "after having been convicted and sentenced [the respondent] is a fugitive from justice."
I am satisfied that there is no reason to refuse to order surrender by reason of any provision of sections 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act, and, subject to reaching a conclusion on the Points of Objection filed his surrender is not prohibited by any provision of Part II of the Act or the Framework Decision.
Section 11 - insufficient details contained in the warrant:
Kieran Kelly B.L. for the respondent has submitted that relevant details are not contained in the warrant relating to applications made by the respondent after his sentence was confirmed on the 24th October, 2003, and that the warrant ought to be considered insufficient to base an application for surrender. The respondent has sworn an affidavit in which he has averred, inter alia, that on the 10th March, 2004 and again on the 17th January, 2005 he applied to the Polish Court to have his sentence...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL