Court consents to the further prosecution of individual already surrendered to Poland

European Arrest Warrant - request for consent to further prosecution in the member state to which a respondent has already been surrendered – whether delay is a stand-alone ground, was not a ground for refusing consent - alleged offence of burglary of a computer shop - consent to further prosecution is not prohibited under any other section contained in Part 3 of the Act of 2003 – argued that it would be oppressive and contrary to his fundamental rights – whether the delay was sufficient to refuse surrender - jurisdiction of the Court to consent to further prosecution of a returned respondent – recent Court of Appeal decision - if consent should be refused on any other ground- must conclude that it has not been established that there is a real risk to the fair trial of the respondent by virtue of the supposed delay in this case - circumstances in which the High Court may refuse consent had yet to be decided - Court is of the view that an abuse of process would also be a ground for refusal of consent to further prosecution - no abuse of process argument was pressed upon the court no abuse of process argument was pressed upon the court - whether the facts in this case establish that there is a real risk of an egregious breach of such a fundamental right - it has not been established that there is a real risk to the fair trial of the respondent by virtue of the supposed delay in this case - basis for holding that the discretion (or power) of the High Court to refuse consent under s. 22(7) is not unfettered - “delay simpliciter” is not a ground upon which the High Court may refuse consent to a request for further prosecution (or further proceedings) against a respondent who has already been surrendered to the issuing state - there has been no abuse of process and no breach of the constitutional or ECHR rights of the respondent.