Ionut Victor Chelu v Romanian Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 337 (Admin)
Antonio Stefanel Nita v Romania
26 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 408 (Admin)
High Court
A young man was convicted of burglary in Romania and fled to the UK. The court decided he must return to Romania to serve his sentence. While the judge considered his age, time spent in the UK, and his family ties here, the importance of upholding extradition agreements won out.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (21) wanted for extradition to Romania for aggravated non-dwelling burglary committed at age 15½ in 2018.
- •Original extradition order by District Judge Leake on 27 July 2023.
- •Appellant initially raised Article 8 ECHR (private and family life), then abandoned and re-raised it.
- •Appellant came to the UK as a fugitive after the 2018 offence.
- •Appellant served 5 months of qualifying remand.
- •Appellant had an electronically monitored curfew (details unclear).
- •Appellant's mother lives and works in the UK and supports him financially.
- •Appellant has no partner, children, or other dependents.
- •Appellant has other convictions in Romania for similar offences.
- •11 months of the original 3-year sentence remain to be served.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Balance between public interest in extradition and Article 8 rights
Case law on extradition
Fugitivity as a factor against Article 8 claims in extradition cases
Case law on extradition
Proportionality test in relation to Article 8 and extradition
Case law on extradition
Avoidance of ‘projecting forward’ qualifying remand to influence Article 8 assessment
Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
No viable Article 8 argument; public interest in extradition outweighs Article 8 considerations; insufficient qualifying remand and other factors to justify an Article 8 bar.
Permission to amend Grounds of Appeal refused.
Article 8 ground lacks viability.