Man surrendered to Poland on foot of three European arrest warrants

European arrest warrant – Polish authorities seeking the surrender of man on 3 warrants – 2 custodial warrants and one prosecutorial warrant – forgery and counterfeiting – argued that the EAWs are invalid because what the Court has before it is a “corrected version” of the European arrest warrants - no correspondence with offences in the third warrant – argued that the sentence on the third EAW has been aggregated on appeal with the sentence of 1 year and 6 months on the first EAW and he is no longer required to serve it – argued that his surrender is contrary to article 8 - issuing judicial authority has now clarified that these are offences to which Article 2 para. 2 of the 2002 Framework Decision applies - unnecessary to establish double criminality or correspondence of offences - insufficient detail was given to comply with the requirements of s. 11 of the Act of 2003 with regard to place of commission and date of commission and detail of the offences especially as regards possession and sale - Court sought further information - Court is satisfied that sufficient information has been placed before it to explain the long time frame of the offence and the circumstances of possession and sale of the firearm – whether the weapon a firearm in this jurisdiction – power to request further information - further information requested - Court satisfied on the evidence produced by the issuing judicial authority that it is a weapon that has been designed for the discharge of a noxious gas - Court satisfied that there is correspondence in this jurisdiction with the offence of possession of a firearm without a firearm certificate contrary to s. 2 of the Firearms Act, 1925, as amended - validity of the first and second European arrest warrants - who issued each EAW- death of the original judge - no evidence even to suggest that the procedure adopted by Poland would invalidate these EAWs as a matter of Polish law - Court must accept at face value the validity of these EAWs from Poland - Court must accept that the issuing judicial authority took the view that it was legally correct to advance this process in the manner in which it did - the manner in which a European arrest warrant may be issued as “corrected” is a matter of procedural autonomy for the issuing state - no lack of clarity – Court satisfied that there is nothing in the 2002 Framework Decision or in the Act of 2003 or s. 11 of the Act of 2003 in particular that requires an issuing judicial authority to issue either, a fresh EAW or to provide additional documentation by other means in order to correct an inaccuracy in the EAW as originally issued - manner in which an EAW is “corrected” is properly a matter for the issuing judicial authority - Court is satisfied that the respondent has not produced any evidence to justify his claim that his sentences have been aggregated and that he is not due to serve the sentence on the final matter – no particularly injurious, prejudicial, harmful or severe consequence - high public interest in his surrender - his own circumstances do not establish that it is disproportionate to surrender him.