Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)
Leonida Vasile v Brad City Court, Romania
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1262 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Romania to face trial for robbery. He argued it would harm his family in the UK, but the court said the seriousness of the crimes was more important. His past crimes in Romania were also a factor, even though he hadn't committed any crimes in the UK recently.
Key Facts
- •Leonida Vasile (Appellant) appealed against an extradition order to Romania.
- •The extradition warrant accuses Vasile of two distraction burglaries involving substantial sums of money and vulnerable victims.
- •Vasile has a wife and four children in the UK.
- •Vasile has pre-settled status in the UK and was employed at the time of the alleged offences.
- •Vasile has a criminal record in Romania, but no UK convictions.
- •The appeal's main ground was that extradition would breach Article 8 ECHR (right to family life) and be incompatible with s 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to family life) in the context of extradition.
ECHR
Section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 (barring extradition if incompatible with human rights).
Extradition Act 2003
The public interest in extradition outweighs Article 8 rights unless the consequences of interference with family life are exceptionally severe (Celinski balancing exercise).
Case law cited but not specified
Outcomes
The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
The court found no arguable evidence of exceptionally severe hardship that would outweigh the public interest in extradition. The judge considered all relevant factors, including the Appellant's family situation and his past criminal record, but found the seriousness of the offences outweighed the impact on his family.