No grounds for refusing consent to prosecute and impose sentence on previously surrendered Polish national

European Arrest Warrant – High Court ordered the surrender of Polish national on foot of four EAWs – two prosecutorial warrants – two custodial warrants – since his surrender the Polish authorities have made seven separate requests seeking to prosecute him for offences pre-dating his surrender or to execute sentences which have already been imposed since his surrender for such offences - judgment concerns five of the seven requests – Polish national objected to consent being given to his further prosecution or to the infliction of punishment in Poland on the grounds that it would breach the rule of specialty and breach his fundamental rights – relevant statutory provisions – prison conditions - real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment by virtue of the conditions of detention in Poland – prejudiced by the conduct of the Polish authorities - statement of his complaints – conditions subjected to for prison transfers - transfers serve a legitimate aim, namely prosecution of offences - prison transfers do not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment - complaints by virtue of these transfers do not reach the required minimum threshold - complaints regarding his treatment while in prison are entirely subjective – complaints are generalised - aspects of Polish prisons are sub-optimal but those conditions, either individually or collectively, do not reach a level of inhuman and degrading treatment- Section 22 (7) and (8) of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 as amended – disapply the rule against specialty - only considerations arising from Part 3 of the Act that the Court must consider in a s. 22 request – whether this would lead to inequality of treatment – situations in which the court can consent - Court is absolved from the requirement to consider afresh what will have been or should have been considered at the surrender stage – statutory interpretation - surrender is not prohibited where a person will be proceeded against and indeed sentenced but no measure restricting his or her personal liberty will be applied in the issuing state – no grounds for refusing consent to section 22 requests.