Minister for Justice v Antons (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Minister for Justice ("the Minister") applied under section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended ("the Act of 2003"), for an order directing the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the Prosecutor General's Office of Latvia on 29 January 2024. The EAW relates to a 2-year suspended sentence imposed on the Respondent by the Riga City Vidzeme Suburb Court on 14 October 2021 for fraud, with the suspension lifted on 9 May 2022 due to failure to register with the State Probation Service and failure to inform them of his whereabouts.

The Respondent was arrested on 10 July 2024 following a Schengen Information System II alert and brought before the court. The EAW was produced on 15 July 2024, and the hearing for the surrender application was initially fixed for 24 July 2024 but was adjourned to 8 August 2024. The Respondent acknowledged he was the person named in the alert and EAW.

The court requested additional information from the issuing judicial authority on 25 July 2024, which was provided with a typographical date error but accepted as valid. The Respondent filed Points of Objection and written submissions on 23 August 2024, with the Minister filing submissions on 30 August 2024. The Respondent also filed a late affidavit opposing surrender on 2 September 2024, which the court allowed to be relied upon at the hearing on 4 September 2024. The court sought further information from the issuing authority, received in September 2024, and the hearing concluded on 2 October 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the information provided in the EAW meets the mandatory requirements of section 11 of the Act of 2003 and Article 8 of the EAW Framework Decision, particularly regarding specificity of time and place of the offence and details of penalties ("the s. 11 objection").
2. Whether the Minister was obliged to apply for a court warrant under section 13 of the Act of 2003 despite the Respondent's arrest under section 14 ("the s. 13 objection").
3. Whether the Respondent's surrender is prohibited under section 37 of the Act of 2003 due to alleged breach of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning ex post facto criminalisation ("the s. 37 objection").
4. Whether the failure to provide specific information about the lifting of the sentence suspension, and the Respondent's absence at that hearing, affects the lawfulness of the EAW and requires refusal of surrender under section 45 ("the s. 45 objection").

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The EAW lacks sufficient specificity about the time and place of the offence and the penalties imposed, failing statutory and Framework Decision requirements.
• The Minister was required to obtain a court warrant under section 13 despite the arrest under section 14, and failure to do so renders the surrender unlawful.
• The surrender would violate Article 7 ECHR protections against retroactive criminalisation because the offence allegedly occurred before certain amendments to the relevant law.
• The EAW is unlawful due to inadequate information about the lifting of the sentence suspension, especially since the Respondent was not present at that hearing, implicating section 45 protections.
• The Respondent asserted lack of awareness of probation conditions and residence in Ireland during the relevant period, challenging procedural fairness.

Minister's Arguments

• The information in the EAW sufficiently identifies the offence, time, place, and penalties, meeting legal requirements.
• The arrest under section 14 is a distinct and valid procedure, and no separate section 13 application is required where arrest has already occurred, avoiding absurdity in interpretation.
• The amendments to the relevant criminal law do not apply to the Respondent’s offence, so surrender does not violate Article 7 ECHR.
• The lifting of the sentence suspension was an enforcement action, not a trial, and the Respondent was legally represented at trial and sentencing, negating grounds for refusal under section 45.
• The Respondent’s residence was declared as Latvia at trial, and no indication was given to the court of residence in Ireland.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court methodically addressed each of the Respondent’s objections. Regarding the s. 11 objection, the court found the EAW sufficiently specific about the offence, time, place, and penalties, noting that the offence was fraud and not conspiracy, and that the place of commission was clearly identified. The s. 13 objection was rejected on the basis that the Act of 2003 provides two alternative arrest procedures: section 13 requires court authorization for arrest after transmission of the EAW, whereas section 14 allows arrest without warrant based on a SIS II alert before transmission. Requiring both procedures would be absurd. The court applied the Interpretation Act 2005 and the principle against doubtful penalisation to support this reasoning.

Concerning the s. 37 objection, the court was satisfied that amendments to the relevant criminal law did not apply retroactively to the Respondent’s offence, thus no breach of Article 7 ECHR arose. For the s. 45 objection, the court considered the Respondent was legally represented at trial and sentencing, and that the activation of the suspended sentence was an enforcement procedure, not a trial, so the absence of the Respondent at that hearing did not invalidate the EAW or require refusal of surrender.

The court also found that the Respondent’s assertions about residence and lack of notification were not supported by the evidence, including certified translations confirming his declared residence in Latvia and proper legal representation. Overall, the court was satisfied that all statutory and procedural requirements were met and that no grounds existed to refuse surrender under the relevant provisions of the Act of 2003.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

The decision directly effects the parties by authorizing the Respondent’s surrender to the requesting Member State. The court explicitly rejected all grounds of objection raised by the Respondent and confirmed the lawfulness and procedural propriety of the surrender application. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling applied established principles to the facts of the case.