High Court orders the surrender of the respondent to the Netherlands, on the grounds that: the fact that the respondent did not appear at the hearing of his appeal, and was not represented, is not a bar to surrender where he was informed of the time and place of the trial leading to the decision and was informed that a decision may be made when he does not appear during the process; and the court did not accept that the explanation offered by the respondent as to why he did not attend the appeal was sufficient to disbelieve the contents of the warrant, or that the respondent made a mistake about the date of his appeal.
European Arrest Warrant – seeking the surrender of the respondent to the Netherlands to enforce a sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment - notice of objection – trial in absentia - history of the proceedings - not contested that the respondent was neither present nor represented at the hearing - Minister for Justice v. Zarnescu - There is no obligation on a respondent to adduce evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of section 45 of the Act have not been met - expect the respondent to have made every effort to provide this court with as complete a picture as possible - affidavit is deficient - credible that the respondent took no steps to alert the authorities in the requesting State that, on his account, he would be unable to attend the appeal - principle of mutual trust and confidence - fact that the respondent did not appear at the hearing of his appeal and was not represented is not therefore a bar to surrender - dismiss the respondent’s objection to surrender based on section 45 of the Act of 2003 and Article 4A of the Framework Decision - breach of his Constitutional and Convention Rights - Framework Directive 2008/909/JHA – surrender ordered –