A Polish man living in Ireland has lost his Supreme Court appeal against surrender, after judges found he knowingly stayed away from a hearing that later triggered a two-year prison term.
The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Polish man’s surrender after finding he chose not to attend a hearing. Judges held on Thursday that Tomasz Kaploniak understood the process he had agreed to in Poland and made a conscious choice not to attend the hearing that led to his second conviction.
The Court said the case was “ultimately misconceived” and rejected claims that he should only be surrendered if he had been warned about every possible consequence of his conviction.
Tomasz Franciszek Kaploniak moved to Ireland in 2009. Before that, he had pleaded guilty in Poland to minor fraud offences and received a two-year sentence, suspended for five years. Months later, he committed another fraud type offence. Police questioned him and had him sign a form confirming his address and accepting that letters sent there would count as delivered.
He then signed a written application asking the court to convict him without a full trial. The document stated that he “voluntarily consent[ed] to the issuance of a conviction without conducting evidentiary proceedings” and that he accepted a ten-month suspended sentence.
Under this procedure, he did not have to attend court, though he could if he wished.
Polish authorities later sent two letters to the address he had provided, giving notice of the hearing. He did not attend. The court convicted him in January 2010 and imposed the agreed suspended sentence.
Because that conviction breached the terms of his earlier suspension, the original two-year sentence was activated. He was not present for that hearing either.
A European Arrest Warrant was first issued in 2016 and later replaced with a corrected warrant in 2023. After the High Court endorsed the fresh warrant, Gardaí arrested him in Ireland last year. In the High Court, he swore an affidavit claiming he knew nothing about the second case. The judge rejected that, finding he had made a conscious choice not to attend the hearing in Poland and had waived his right to be present.
On appeal, he argued that “awareness of consequences” should include knowing that the second conviction could activate the first sentence. He also said he should have had legal advice before signing the consent document.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It said the activation was not a consequence of missing the hearing, but simply the legal result of being convicted again. It noted he had signed a document allowing the court to convict him in his absence and had never claimed he misunderstood it or was pressured.
The Court said anyone with a suspended sentence knows another conviction can activate it. It found no breach of defence rights, held that Poland was not required to give any further warnings, and dismissed the appeal.
———————————————————————–
Pat Coyne