PT v Romanian Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 1269 (Admin)
Octavian Radu v The Vaslui Court of Law, Romania
18 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 603 (Admin)
High Court
A person facing extradition tried to appeal again, raising a new reason why the extradition order was wrong. The court decided that was okay to do. But, it still said the person should be extradited because the original paperwork was good enough.
Key Facts
- •Octavian Radu was ordered to be extradited to Romania to serve a merged sentence for drug offences.
- •Radu's initial application for permission to appeal was refused by Lane J.
- •Radu filed a renewed application for permission to appeal, relying on a new ground: the extradition warrant lacked sufficient 'particulars of the conviction' under section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •The new ground was not raised in the original appeal.
- •The issue before Swift J was whether the renewed application, raising a new ground, was procedurally permissible under the Criminal Procedure Rules.
Legal Principles
A renewed application for permission to appeal can include new grounds not raised in the original application.
Crim PR 50.22
A renewed application for permission to appeal must explain the grounds for renewal.
Crim PR 50.22(3)
The court has a general power to allow amendments to notices of appeal under Crim PR 50.17(6)(b), not solely Crim PR 50.20(5).
Crim PR 50.17(6)(b), 50.20(5)
In a conviction warrant, 'particulars of the conviction' under section 2(6)(b) of the 2003 Act must be sufficient to assess the gravity of the offence and proportionality of extradition to Article 8 rights.
Extradition Act 2003, section 2(6)(b); King v France [2015] EWHC 3670 (Admin)
Outcomes
The renewed application for permission to appeal was deemed effective.
The Notice of Renewal complied with Crim PR 50.22(3) by explaining the grounds for renewal. The court clarified the interplay between Crim PR 50.17(6)(b) and 50.20(5) regarding amendments to appeal notices.
The application for permission to appeal on the section 2 ground (insufficient particulars of the conviction) was refused.
The information provided in the warrant and supplementary documents was deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of section 2(6)(b) of the 2003 Act. The court found the argument that the lack of the amount of cannabis sold was not a properly arguable point.