Veronica Grigorie v Valcea Law Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1436 (Admin)
Marius-Mihai Nisipeanu v District Court of Dolj, Romania
27 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 385 (Admin)
High Court
A father is fighting extradition to Romania for drug offenses. He says it will harm his autistic son. The court considered the impact on the son, but decided the need to uphold the law was more important because the son would be supported. The father will be sent back to Romania.
Key Facts
- •Marius-Mihai Nisipeanu appeals extradition to Romania for three offences: two drug offences (cannabis sale and methadone possession) and one involving unscheduled psychoactive substances (discharged by the Judge).
- •A four-year sentence remains, with three offences aggregated in a single Romanian sentence.
- •Appellant argues extradition is barred by specialty (section 17 of the Extradition Act 2003), lack of particularity (section 2), and disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights due to his autistic son's needs.
- •Fresh evidence is presented regarding the son's autism diagnosis and care arrangements.
Legal Principles
Specialty: Extradited individuals may not be prosecuted for offences prior to surrender, other than the offence for which they were surrendered. A strong presumption exists that EU member states will respect specialty rights unless compelling evidence contradicts this.
R (Mihaylov) v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin), paras 17-18; Enasoaie v Court of Bacau, Romania [2021] EWHC 69 (Admin); Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant; Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957
Particularity: A conviction warrant must contain specific details, including particulars of the conviction and sentence imposed. A warrant is not invalidated if extradition is refused for some of the offences.
Section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003; Edutanu v Romania [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin); Enasoaie v Court of Bacau, Romania [2021] EWHC 69 (Admin)
Article 8 ECHR: In extradition cases involving children, the child's best interests are a primary consideration in the balancing exercise against the public interest in extradition. The court must carefully examine the nature and extent of the interference with family life.
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25; Norris v Government of USA (No2) [2010] UKSC 9; Celinski & Others v Slovakian Judicial Authority [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Fresh Evidence: Fresh evidence will be admitted on appeal if it was unavailable at the extradition hearing, would have resulted in a different decision, and that decision would have required the appellant's discharge.
Section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003; Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin); Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed. Extradition ordered.
The court found that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof on the specialty and particularity grounds. Regarding Article 8, while acknowledging the emotional distress to the appellant and his son (who has autism), the court concluded that the public interest in extradition outweighed the interference with family life, considering the availability of support for the son in both Romania and the UK.