Matei Botka v Romanian Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 1332 (Admin)
Danil Nicolae Mirita v Dambovita County Court (Romania)
12 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 799 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of drug crimes in Romania years ago but didn't serve his sentence. He appealed his extradition to the UK, saying the delay was unfair to his family. The court agreed there was a delay but said the man should still go to Romania because the delay wasn't intentionally caused, and the seriousness of the crime is important.
Key Facts
- •Danil Nicolae Miri Ță (appellant) appeals his extradition to Romania ordered by District Judge Tempia on December 1, 2022.
- •The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued by the Dambovita County Court (Romania) on October 20, 2016, for drug trafficking conspiracy and cannabis cultivation offences committed in 2008-2009.
- •The appellant was sentenced in absentia to two years and four months' imprisonment in April 2016.
- •The appellant's main argument is that extradition would violate his and his family's Article 8 ECHR rights due to the significant delay (over six years) in bringing the case to trial.
- •The appellant claims a domestic warrant was issued and withdrawn in Romania in 2009, a fact the District Judge initially rejected, impacting the assessment of delay.
- •The appellant lives in the UK with his wife, son, and mother, and is the sole provider for the family.
- •New evidence shows a domestic warrant was issued and then quashed in 2009 due to procedural issues.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (right of appeal)
Extradition Act 2003
Proportionality test in extradition cases considering Article 8 rights and delay.
Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski and others [2015] EWHC 1271 (Admin), Gomulka v Poland [2024] EWHC 460 (Admin), Wolack v Poland [2014] EWHC 2278 (Admin), Germany v Singh [2019] EWHC 62 (Admin), Lysiak v Poland [2015] EWHC 3098 (Admin)
Admissibility of fresh evidence in extradition appeals; must be decisive to affect the outcome.
Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin)
The appellate court's role is to review, not re-hear, focusing on whether the lower court was wrong in its outcome.
Norris v USA [2008] 1 AC 920
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; extradition ordered.
While the District Judge erred in finding no delay, the Court of Appeal found the overall balancing exercise was not wrong. The delay, though largely unexplained, wasn't deemed culpable. The impact on family life, while acknowledged, wasn't considered exceptionally severe, and the public interest in extradition remained strong given the serious nature of the offenses and the unserved sentence.