Georgeta Ghinea v Gaesti Law Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Alin-Ionut Stafi v Judecatoria Roman, Romania
28 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 429 (Admin)
High Court
Mr. Stafi was sentenced in Romania without attending. Romania wanted him back, but the UK court said there wasn't enough proof he *deliberately* missed the hearing, so they let him go.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Stafi appeals extradition to Romania for fraud, focusing on whether Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 was complied with.
- •He was sentenced in absentia (Sentence 359) to three years imprisonment.
- •The EAW initially stated a retrial right, but Romania later confirmed no such right exists.
- •The District Judge did not consider whether Mr. Stafi deliberately absented himself from the hearing for Sentence 359.
- •The respondent seeks to admit fresh evidence (FI7) suggesting Mr. Stafi deliberately absented himself by failing to update his address.
- •Mr. Stafi claims he was unaware of the hearing and believed proceedings were concluded.
Legal Principles
Section 20(3) EA 2003: Determines if the requested person deliberately absented themselves from trial. If not, Section 20(5) considers retrial entitlement.
Extradition Act 2003
Section 27 EA 2003: Sets out conditions for allowing an appeal, including if the judge ought to have decided a question differently or if new evidence/issues would have changed the decision.
Extradition Act 2003
The burden of proving deliberate absence under Section 20 rests on the respondent (the requesting state).
Extradition Act 2003
Deliberate absence means a decision taken in light of all material information, not necessarily deliberate evasion of justice.
France v Wade [2006] EWHC 1909 (Admin)
The court has inherent jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on appeal, considering the interests of justice.
FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; extradition quashed; appellant discharged.
Insufficient evidence to prove Mr. Stafi deliberately absented himself from the hearing, even with the fresh evidence. The respondent failed to meet the burden of proof to the criminal standard. Since there's no retrial right, Section 20(7) mandates discharge.