Human rights NGO refused permission to join Polish extradition case

Fair Trial Europe, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) whose stated goal is to “defend the human right to a fair trial”, had applied to join High Court extradition proceedings involving Artur Celmer, who is wanted to face trial in his native Poland on drug trafficking charges.

The proposed surrender of Mr Celmer, who was arrested in Ireland on foot of a European Arrest Warrant last May, was referred to Europe last week for a ruling on the effect of recent legislative changes in Poland concerning the Polish judiciary, courts and public prosecutor.

In her decision to refer the case to Europe, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly said a number of recent legislative changes in Poland were “so immense” that the High Court was forced to conclude that the rule of law in Poland had been “systematically damaged”.

Fair Trial Europe applied on Wednesday to join proceedings as an ‘amicus curiae’ or friend of the court to assist matters.

Brian Gageby BL, counsel for the NGO, told Ms Justice Donnelly his client wished to become involved in the matter when it goes before the CJEU and to provide assistance in terms of the questions being asked.

In her ruling on Fair Trial Europe’s application on Friday, Ms Justice Donnelly said it had an important role to play in civil society as an NGO focusing on fair trials and in particular cross-border fair trial issues.

However, in the context of the present proceedings and the stage they have been reached, she said the court was satisfied that it should not exercise its discretion to join Fair Trial Europe as an amicus curiae.

Ms Justice Donnelly said Fair Trial Europe’s “eleventh-hour intervention is not conducive to the proper and efficient conduct of these proceedings”.

If the High Court permitted Fair Trial Europe to be joined, she said the court would have to set aside further time which, “in the context of the urgency of this matter”, is a matter that strongly militated against joining them as an amicus curiae.

Furthermore, she said the court did not consider it likely to be assisted significantly by the intervention of the proposed amicus curiae.

The court had made its determination on the issues that were raised before it; both of the parties were invited to, and had, commented on the proposed questions for the CJEU.

She said each party was represented by senior counsel, two junior counsel as well as solicitor and the court is not satisfied that the proposed amicus curiae will bring a perspective to the issue (of which questions should be referred) “that will not be provided, or has not been provided, by the parties to date”.

Ruaidhrí Giblin, Ireland International News Agency Ltd.