Court requests further information from Polish authorities in relation to a European arrest warrant

European Arrest Warrant – Polish authorities seeking the respondent’s surrender – custodial warrant – minimum gravity – sentence left to be served - uncertainty as to which offences the issuing judicial authority was relying upon – Central authority here sent a letter seeking further information in relation to this and other matters – explain the description of offences - Court directed that further information should be sought in relation to which offences are being relied upon as the forgery and swindling offences – same response - Court was none the wiser in relation to this issue when the matter next came before the Court - Court directed that yet another inquiry in relation to this matter to clarify those offences which the IJA intended to refer to in ticking the boxes in respect of forgery and swindling – answer still did not clarify the issues - one last letter should be sent to clarify the issue - because some of the offences referred to in the EAW did not fit into the categories of offences set out in para. E.1 (i.e. those referred to Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision), specifically those offences consisting of obtaining credit under false pretences, it decided to provide a detailed description of all offences in respect of which the surrender of the respondent is sought in para. E.2 of the EAW, although in its earlier correspondence it acknowledged that in so doing it did so in error – lack of clarity – correspondence – amalgamation of offences – particulars of offences - particulars establish no more than that the respondent assisted another person to sell oil for which he knew that other person had not yet paid the supplier - unclear precisely what is said to have constituted the prohibited act – no correspondence – impact on the EAW – cumulative sentence imposed - surrender of the respondent is sought in connection with two court judgments – trial in absentia - his sentence in respect of those proceedings has become enmeshed with the sentence imposed on him in connection with the other case – argued not possible to disentangle the matter in respect of which surrender is prohibited from those in respect of which it is permitted - open to the respondent concerned to make application to have the penalty imposed on him pursuant to the cumulative judgment reduced proportionately to reflect the fact that he was not being surrendered for one of the offences to which that cumulative penalty related – Court will request further information to determine whether it is open to the respondent to make application to the court to have the cumulative penalty imposed upon him reduced proportionately to reflect the fact that his surrender has been refused in connection with a specified offence or offences - if the court can be satisfied that, if surrendered, the respondent is assured that his sentences will be reduced proportionately to reflect the decision of this Court that he is not being surrendered in connection with the offences to which I have referred, then I will direct his surrender in connection with all other offences -