Minister for Justice and Equality v Tomes (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 20 June 2016. The EAW was issued by the President of the Senate at Pilsen City District Court. The surrender was sought to sentence the Respondent for alleged robbery-type offences.

The Respondent was arrested on 9 December 2021 following a Schengen Information System II alert and appeared before the High Court on 10 December 2021. The EAW was produced to the Court on 21 December 2021. The Court was satisfied that the Respondent was the person named in the EAW and that none of the statutory grounds for refusal under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, applied to preclude surrender.

The Respondent objected to surrender on grounds including non-consent, alleged non-compliance with certain sections of the Act, and that surrender would breach his right to family life under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly given his juvenile status at the time of the offences and his family circumstances.

The offences described in the EAW involved multiple robbery incidents occurring in 2008 in the Czech Republic, with details of the acts and the victims’ injuries and losses outlined. The Respondent had received suspended sentences which were later activated due to breach of supervision conditions. The Respondent was subsequently released on parole but failed to comply with supervision, leading to the issuance of the EAW.

The Court received clarifications from the issuing judicial authority regarding a manifest error in the translation of the EAW relating to the classification of offences, confirming that the offences were robbery and not narcotics trafficking. The Court also reviewed the Respondent’s family and personal circumstances, including care responsibilities for a son with autism and the impact of surrender on family life.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether surrender of the Respondent is prohibited under Section 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to errors or ambiguities in the EAW.
2. Whether surrender is prohibited under Section 45 of the Act concerning the Respondent’s sentencing and parole status.
3. Whether surrender is prohibited under Section 37 of the Act on grounds of incompatibility with the Respondent’s rights to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR and the Constitution.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent did not consent to surrender and awaited proof of necessary matters to justify surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act and Framework Decision.
• The proposed surrender allegedly did not comply with Sections 5 and 38(1)(a) of the Act due to the incorrect invocation of offences related to illicit trafficking in narcotics.
• Surrender was prohibited under Section 37 of the Act as it would breach the Respondent’s right to family life guaranteed by the Constitution and Article 8 ECHR, considering his juvenile status at the time of the offences and the familial circumstances, including care for a son with autism.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed the identity of the Respondent as the person named in the EAW and found no statutory bars to surrender under relevant sections of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It addressed the Respondent’s objection based on an alleged manifest error in the EAW concerning the classification of offences. Upon clarification from the issuing judicial authority, the Court found that the error was a translation mistake and that the offences related to robbery. Consequently, the Court held that the requirement to establish correspondence between the offences under the issuing state’s law and Irish law applied and was satisfied by equivalence with the offences of robbery and assault under Irish law.

Regarding the Respondent’s parole and sentencing status, the Court was satisfied that surrender was sought under section 10(c) of the Act, relating to a person convicted but not yet sentenced, or whose sentence is to be executed. The Court reviewed the chronology of the Respondent’s suspended sentences, activation of sentence, parole, and breach of supervision, concluding that no prohibition under Section 45 arose.

The Court then rigorously assessed the Respondent’s Article 8 ECHR objection concerning family life, particularly the care of his autistic son and the impact of surrender on the family. It considered relevant Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, emphasizing the high threshold for refusal based on Article 8 and the need for cogent, exceptional evidence. The Court acknowledged the Respondent’s family circumstances and care responsibilities but found the evidence insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of compliance with fundamental rights obligations by the issuing state.

The Court distinguished the present case from precedent cases involving exceptional delay and disruption, noting that the Respondent had deliberately absconded to avoid imprisonment and that the issuing authorities acted without culpable delay once the Respondent’s whereabouts became known. The Court found that the family circumstances, while deserving of sympathy, were not so exceptional as to prohibit surrender.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that surrender was not precluded by any provision of the Act of 2003 and that the Respondent’s objections did not meet the legal threshold for refusal.

Holding and Implications

The Court ordered the surrender of the Respondent to the Czech Republic pursuant to Section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The direct effect of this decision is to permit the execution of the EAW and the Respondent’s return to the issuing state for sentencing and imprisonment. The Court emphasized that this decision does not establish new precedent but applies established principles regarding the interpretation of the Act, the handling of manifest errors in EAWs, and the rigorous threshold for refusal on Article 8 grounds. The decision underscores the importance of timely and proper issuance of EAWs and confirms that family circumstances, while relevant, must meet a high standard to preclude surrender.