The Minister for Justice & Equality v Siklosi

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Maurice Collins
• Judgment Date: 09 June 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IECA 142
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Record No 2021/8

In the Matter of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (As Amended)

Between

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Applicant/Respondent

and

Zsolt Siklósi

Respondent/Appellant

[2023] IECA 142

Birmingham P

Collins J

Edwards J

Record No 2021/8

THE COURT OF APPEAL

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Request for additional information – Appellant seeking to discharge the order for surrender made by the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal should make a s. 20 request for additional information

Facts: The Hungarian authorities sought the surrender of the appellant, Mr Siklosi, for the purpose of his serving the remaining 11 months of a one year term of imprisonment imposed on him following his conviction for a number of offences committed in August 2005. The European arrest warrant issued on 27 July 2017. The High Court (Binchy J) made an order for his surrender, giving leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In Collins J’s judgment of 21 July 2021, he rejected a number of grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant. Other grounds advanced by the appellant relating to Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA raised issues which the Court considered appropriate to refer to the CJEU pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. The CJEU gave its judgment on 23 March 2023. The respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, responded to the CJEU judgment by inviting the Court of Appeal to make a detailed s. 20 request for additional information, directed at establishing whether, in respect of a further child support offence, one or other of the conditions set out in Article 4a(1) was satisfied and/or whether, in all the circumstances, surrender of the appellant would not, in any event, involve any breach of his rights of defence. That was opposed by the appellant, who urged the Court to allow the appeal and discharge the order for surrender simpliciter. Shortly after the conclusion of the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it had reached the view that the appropriate order to make in the circumstances was to allow the appeal and discharge the order for surrender made by the High Court. This judgment set out the Court of Appeal’s reasons for making that order.

Held by Collins J that there were a number of factors that, individually and cumulatively, weighed decisively against acceding to the respondent’s request: first, it appeared from the European arrest warrant itself that the appellant’s sentence became prescribed (i.e. statute-barred) as of 27 July 2022; secondly, and in any event, it was common case that, by reason of time spent in custody in the course of the proceedings, the appellant had effectively served virtually all of his prison sentence; and thirdly, the offences date back to 2005 and the sentence sought to be enforced was imposed in June 2012, this was the second European arrest warrant issued in respect of the 2005 offences, any suggestion that the appellant may have waived his right to attend the hearing before the Miskolc Court of Appeal in June 2012 appeared speculative, and there had already been a prolonged series of requests for additional information and responses. Having regard to those factors, Collins J was not persuaded that the Court of Appeal should issue a s. 20 request (assuming that it was entitled to do so) or that it should remit the proceedings to the High Court for that purpose.

Collins J held that, giving full weight to the principle that the rule is that European arrest warrants should be executed and that any exception from that general rule must be narrowly construed, in the particular circumstances the only appropriate order to be made was one allowing the appeal, discharging the order for surrender made by the High Court and dismissing the proceedings.

Appeal allowed.

Unapproved

No redaction required

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Maurice Collins delivered on 9 June 2023

(Reasons for the Order made by the Court on 24 May 2023)

BACKGROUND

1 The relevant factual background is set out in detail in my earlier judgment in this appeal, given on 21 July 2021 ( [2021] IECA 210). The issues in this appeal overlap to a significant degree with the issues arising in another appeal in which this Court also gave judgment on 21 July 2021, Minister for Justice and Equality v Szamota [2021] IECA 209. This judgment should be read with that judgment as well as this Court's further judgment in Szamota also given today (to which, for ease of reference, I shall refer as “ Szamota (No 2)”).

2 The Hungarian authorities seek Mr Siklosi's surrender for the purpose of his serving the remaining 11 months of a one year term of imprisonment imposed on him following his conviction for a number of offences committed in August 2005 (the “ 2005 Offences”). As a result of these convictions, Mr Siklosi was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. However, execution of that sentence was suspended for a two year probation period which was...