Surrender ordered where delay was not so egregious as to amount an abuse of process

European arrest warrant – Polish authorities seeking the surrender of the respondent - respondent is sought for surrender for the purposes of serving a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years, 3 years and 4 months remains to be served – points of objection - respondent has suggested that there were a number of errors in the current European arrest warrant sufficient to prohibit surrender – additional information - requirement for clarity - Court has all of the information necessary to carry out its function under the Act – whether surrender is prohibited on the basis of delay and abuse of process - lawfully imposed custodial sentence was in existence at the time of his departure - Law on Delay/Article 8 Rights/Abuse of process - chronology of relevant events - delay between 2016 and 2021 was not the fault of the Polish or the Irish authorities – did not know his address - delay in this case is not so egregious as to amount to an abuse of process, particularly in circumstances where much of the delay was caused by the respondent - no clear, cogent evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption in Section 4A of the 2003 Act. – trial in absentia – relevant legislation - satisfied that the respondent was present on the date of his conviction and sentence – aware of sentence – his lawyer lodged an appeal – relevant legal principles - respondent states that the EAW in this application did not contain the correct Part D information - Court must ask itself is whether it can reliably determine what occurred on the relevant dates of the domestic hearings - the rights of the respondent under Section 45 of the Act of 2003 have been fully vindicated – surrender ordered