Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
1 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was fighting extradition to Romania. New evidence showed their arguments were weak, so the judge refused to delay things and said they have to go back to Romania. There's a small chance they could appeal again later, but it's unlikely to work.
Key Facts
- •Extradition appeal based on Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR grounds.
- •Appellant, Nicolae-Filip Uca, convicted in Romania of driving offences and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
- •Appellant's legal representatives sought an adjournment to allow for new representation and raised concerns about newly discovered documents.
- •Key documents included a bespoke assurance regarding prison conditions (dated 30 September 2022) and information from the Appellant's own Romanian proceedings (dated 12 January 2023).
- •Appellant argued inadequate assurances regarding prison conditions (Article 3) and that a period of conditional bail should count towards his sentence (Article 8).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment)
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (health grounds for refusing extradition)
Extradition Act 2003
Criminal Procedure Rules rule 50.27 (safety net provision for reopening extradition appeals)
Criminal Procedure Rules
Outcomes
Granted Respondent permission to adduce the assurance and further information.
The new materials were deemed essential for determining the viability of the Appellant's arguments.
Refused the application to adjourn.
The court found that the newly discovered documents rendered the Appellant's arguments on Article 3 and Article 8 unviable and no other grounds for adjournment existed.
Refused permission to appeal on Article 3 and Article 8 grounds.
The court found no realistic prospect of success on either ground.
Ordered that the 10-day removal period begin no earlier than 15 March 2023.
To allow the Appellant time to explore the option of instructing new lawyers under CPR 50.27
Allowed Appellant's solicitors to come off the record.
Due to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the new documents and the subsequent lack of viable arguments.