SA v The Buftea Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 2950 (Admin)
Valeriu-Cosmin Argeseanu v Petrosani Court Of Law, Romania
9 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 513 (Admin)
High Court
A man was trying to avoid going to prison in Romania by staying in the UK. Even though there were lots of delays and mistakes in the legal process, a judge decided it was still fair to send him back to serve his sentence. The judge said he wasn't unfairly treated because he had caused some of the delays himself.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Argeseanu appeals extradition to Romania to serve a 3-year, 1-month sentence for four offences (one 2005 public order/criminal damage offence and three 2004 assault offences), plus activation of a suspended sentence from a 2002 assault.
- •Previous extradition attempts (EAW1 & EAW2) failed due to insufficient particulars, leading to partial discharges.
- •A new EAW (EAW3) was issued after Mr. Argeseanu requested his sentences be unmerged and merged into a single sentence, resulting in a longer overall sentence than previously faced.
- •Mr. Argeseanu claims EAW3 is an abuse of process, arguing it reinstates the 2002 offence and increases his sentence.
- •The District Judge found Mr. Argeseanu a fugitive, rejecting his section 14 (passage of time) and section 21 (Article 8 rights) claims, and dismissed the abuse of process claim.
- •The appellant had been in the UK since 2007.
Legal Principles
Test for 'fugitive' status: knowingly placing oneself beyond the reach of the criminal justice system.
Wisniewski v Poland [2016] EWHC 386 (Admin)
Section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003: passage of time as a bar to extradition; time runs from when the decision on which the warrant is based becomes final.
Extradition Act 2003, Konecny v Czech Republic [2019] UKSC 8
Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003: Article 8 rights; proportionality test balancing public and private interests.
Extradition Act 2003, Poland v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Abuse of process: requires specific identification of the abuse, showing it's capable of amounting to abuse, reasonable grounds for believing it occurred, and judicial authority explanation.
Haynes v Malta [2009] EWHC 880 (Admin), Tollman
Fugitive status does not necessarily cease upon arrest; a fugitive cannot benefit from delay caused by their own actions.
Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the District Judge's decision was not wrong, despite some errors in his approach. While acknowledging delays and procedural complexities, the court considered the Article 8 balance and found extradition proportionate.
Ground 1 (Fugitive Status): Rejected.
Although the judge's finding on the precise timing of Mr. Argeseanu's departure from Romania was incorrect, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that he was a fugitive.
Ground 2 (Section 14): Not determined.
The court deemed the passage of time argument fully addressable within the Article 8 framework, thus making a separate decision on section 14 unnecessary.
Ground 3 (Article 8): Rejected.
The court acknowledged some flaws in the District Judge's analysis (e.g., insufficient consideration of delay), but found that the overall evaluation of the Article 8 balance was not wrong. The factors in favor of extradition outweighed those against.
Ground 4 (Abuse of Process): Rejected.
The court identified an error of law in the District Judge's articulation of the burden of proof but found that this error did not affect the outcome. EAW3, while resulting in a longer sentence, was not considered an abuse of process as it stemmed from Mr. Argeseanu's own actions in seeking sentence merging.