Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform -v- Sliczynski [2008] IESC 73 (19 December 2008)

Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform -v- Sliczynski [2008] IESC 73 (19 December 2008)

Correspondence from the Polish Judicial Authority was admissible under s.20 of the Act of 2003 and could be relied upon by the High Court. The evidence established that the appellant had fled Poland within the meaning of s.10(d) before serving his sentences, justifying surrender for the first three offences. However, for the fourth offence, tried in absentia, the appellant was not actually notified of the time and place of trial, and no written undertaking for retrial was provided as required by s.45. Therefore, surrender for the fourth offence could not be ordered.

Citation
[2008] IESC 73
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Respondent/appellant: Piotr Sliczynski
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (european Arrest Warrant) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Surrender
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of three convictions; appeal allowed in respect of conviction rendered in absentia.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Extradition for Sentence Enforcement, Hearsay Evidence in Extradition, Notification Requirements for in Absentia Convictions, Onus of Proof in Extradition Proceedings
Criminal Law Extradition Law European Union Law European Arrest Warrant Extradition for Sentence Enforcement Hearsay Evidence in Extradition Notification Requirements for in Absentia Convictions Onus of Proof in Extradition Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant/respondent

Piotr Sliczynski

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (european Arrest Warrant) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Surrender

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence from the Polish Judicial Authority was admissible as evidence under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the High Court correctly applied the onus of proof and the concept of 'fleeing' under s.10(d) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was properly notified of the trial leading to his in absentia conviction for the fourth offence

Ratio Decidendi

Correspondence from the Polish Judicial Authority was admissible under s.20 of the Act of 2003 and could be relied upon by the High Court. The evidence established that the appellant had fled Poland within the meaning of s.10(d) before serving his sentences, justifying surrender for the first three offences. However, for the fourth offence, tried in absentia, the appellant was not actually notified of the time and place of trial, and no written undertaking for retrial was provided as required by s.45. Therefore, surrender for the fourth offence could not be ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of three convictions; appeal allowed in respect of conviction rendered in absentia.

Orders

  • Surrender ordered for three offences with suspended sentences now activated.
  • Surrender refused for the fourth offence (in absentia conviction) due to lack of actual notification and absence of required undertaking.