Octavian Radu v The Vaslui Court of Law, Romania
[2024] EWHC 603 (Admin)
PT v Romanian Judicial Authority
14 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1269 (Admin)
High Court
A man fighting extradition to Romania for a driving offense wanted to add new evidence showing he was repeatedly raped in prison. A judge let him add that evidence but refused another request. The new evidence could change the outcome if it's believed.
Key Facts
- •Applicant sought to reopen an extradition appeal to admit fresh evidence.
- •Applicant was convicted in Romania for driving without a license and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
- •Applicant was unrepresented at the initial hearing, relying on Articles 3 and 8.
- •Fresh evidence included psychiatric and medical reports indicating repeated rape in custody.
- •Applicant sought to amend the application to raise a new ground under s.5 and reopen Article 8 and s.20 points.
- •Significant delays were attributed to errors by previous solicitors.
- •The respondent argued for finality and that the applicant was essentially re-arguing the same points with new evidence.
Legal Principles
Criteria for reopening an appeal under CPR 50.27.
CPR 50.27
Test for reopening an appeal considering exceptional circumstances, real injustice and supervening developments.
The United States v Bohen, para.50; XY, para.51; Seprehoso v Romania, para.20
Requirements for a re-trial under s.20, based on Merticariu.
Merticariu
Need for exceptionality and finality in extradition appeals.
McIntyre v USA; Garaluk v Poland
Outcomes
Application to reopen the appeal under Article 8 and s.25 granted.
The court found a real risk of injustice due to the new medical evidence indicating repeated rape in custody, which could be determinative in the extradition decision. The circumstances were deemed exceptional.
Application to reopen the appeal under s.20 refused.
The Supreme Court's decision in Merticariu determined that a tick in Box 3.4 indicated a right to re-trial; the court found no basis to overturn this decision.