Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
 Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
 
			| or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments | 
High Court refuses to order the surrender of respondent to Poland on foot of a European Arrest Warrant, on the grounds that: this was identical to a previous European Arrest Warrant, and the court was satisfied that the issuing of the second warrant five and a half years after surrender had been refused by the High Court, taken together with the total time that has elapsed since the offences were committed, the respondent’s medical condition and the failure of the issuing judicial authority to engage adequately with the High Court’s request for an explanation for the delay, all amounts to an abuse of process.
European Arrest Warrant – Polish authorities seeking the surrender of the respondent on foot of a EAW to enforce a sentence of 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment imposed upon the respondent on 21st April 2006, of which 1 year, 1 month and 16 days remains to be served - abuse of process - surrender was previously sought for the same offences on foot of a warrant dated 9th September 2013 – surrender refused - failure of the IJA to engage with previous assurances sought – warrant identical – judgment of the High Court – additional information – satisfied that the issuing of the second warrant five and a half years after surrender had been refused by Hunt J., taken together with the total time that has elapsed since the offences were committed, the respondent’s medical condition and the failure of the IJA to engage adequately with the Court’s request for an explanation for the delay does amount to an abuse of process - whether it was of such a limited degree that, applying the principle of proportionality, surrender should nonetheless be ordered – Court did not consider the abuse of process to be insignificant and in all the circumstances – surrender refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
 Click here to request a subscription.