Suceava District Court, Romania v Marian Gurau
[2023] EWHC 439 (Admin)
Nicolae Prejoinau v Deputy General Prosecutor of Messina (Italy)
6 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2378 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of human trafficking in Romania and then faced similar charges in Italy. He argued he shouldn't be sent to Italy because it's double jeopardy. The court decided the Italian charges were different enough, and that Italy wouldn't unfairly punish him twice, so he's being sent to Italy.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Italy based on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for human trafficking.
- •Appellant previously convicted in Romania for related human trafficking offenses involving two victims.
- •Italian EAW contains charges relating to a broader conspiracy involving multiple victims and a longer timeframe.
- •Italian court excluded the conduct relating to the two Romanian victims from the sentence, reducing the sentence accordingly.
- •Appellant argued against extradition based on double jeopardy (s. 12 Extradition Act 2003), passage of time (s. 14), specialty (s. 17), and human rights (Article 8 ECHR).
- •District Judge rejected all challenges and ordered extradition.
Legal Principles
Double Jeopardy (s. 12 Extradition Act 2003)
Extradition Act 2003
Fofana test for double jeopardy: extradition barred if (a) autrefois acquit/convict applies; or (b) second prosecution based on same/substantially same facts as first, constituting abuse of process.
Fofana v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin [2006] EWHC 744 (Admin)
Article 3(2) EAW Framework Decision: extradition prohibited if requested person finally judged by a Member State for the same acts.
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Mantello interpretation of 'same acts': autonomous concept of EU law, referring to the nature of acts and inextricably linked circumstances.
Case C-261/09 Mantello
Sufficient Particularisation (s. 2 Extradition Act 2003): EAW must provide sufficient detail to inform the person of the offence and allegations.
Extradition Act 2003
Specialty (s. 17 Extradition Act 2003): Extradited person can only be prosecuted for the offense for which they were extradited, unless specific exceptions apply.
Extradition Act 2003
Strong presumption that EU Member States will comply with specialty obligations; compelling evidence needed to prove breach.
Brodziak v Circuit Court in Warsaw [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Court found no double jeopardy under s. 12 or Fofana test because Italian prosecution excluded conduct covered by Romanian conviction. Sufficient particularization under s. 2 was found. No compelling evidence of specialty breach under s. 17.