Danil Nicolae Mirita v Dambovita County Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 799 (Admin)
SA v The Buftea Court, Romania
21 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2950 (Admin)
High Court
SA was convicted of serious crimes in Romania and fled to the UK. He doesn't want to go back, claiming he's a victim of trafficking and was treated unfairly in Romania. The court looked at all this evidence. Even though SA has problems, and might be a victim of some things, the court decided the evidence wasn't strong enough to stop him from being sent back to serve his sentence. He has to return to Romania to face justice.
Key Facts
- •SA appeals extradition to Romania for two offenses: rape of two boys (Offence 1) and coercing them into sexual acts (Offence 2).
- •SA was convicted in absentia for Offence 2 after initially pleading guilty.
- •SA claims to be a victim of modern slavery and sexual abuse, supported by expert evidence but disputed by the District Judge.
- •SA has learning disabilities, PTSD, and cognitive difficulties.
- •The District Judge found insufficient evidence to support SA's claims of trafficking and sexual abuse.
- •The District Judge found SA deliberately absented himself from the trial for Offence 2.
- •The appeal challenges the District Judge's findings on fact and his application of Sections 20, Articles 5, 6, and 8 ECHR.
Legal Principles
The court's powers on extradition appeal are outlined in section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 27
The appeal test is whether the District Judge's decision was wrong; did he err in a way requiring a different statutory answer?
Surico v Italy [2018] EWHC 401 (Admin)
In extradition cases involving Article 8 ECHR, the court must balance the individual's rights against the public interest in upholding justice and international obligations.
Various case law cited in sections 71-87, including Molar v Slovakia [2018] EWHC 2589 (Admin) and Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin)
The court considers whether there has been a flagrant breach of Article 6 ECHR rights, applying Popoviciu v Romania [2023] UKSC 39.
Popoviciu v Romania [2023] UKSC 39
Section 20 of the 2003 Act addresses situations where the requested person was not present at trial. The court must determine if the absence was deliberate and if they would be entitled to a retrial upon return.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 20
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on Ground One (unsupportable findings of fact).
The District Judge's rejection of SA's untested evidence was justified. Insufficient evidence supported claims of trafficking and abuse. The weighting given to expert evidence was reasonable.
Appeal dismissed on Ground Two (Section 20 of the 2003 Act).
The District Judge correctly concluded SA was deliberately absent from his trial for Offence 2. Even if not deliberate, SA would be entitled to a retrial, fulfilling Section 20 requirements.
Appeal dismissed on Ground Four (Articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR).
Insufficient evidence demonstrated a flagrant breach of Article 6 rights. The presumption of Romania's compliance with Article 6 was not rebutted.
Appeal dismissed on Ground Three (Article 8 of the ECHR).
The District Judge correctly balanced the relevant factors and reached a decision that was open to him. The fresh evidence (Conclusive Grounds Decision and RNA) was not admitted.