Alin-Ionut Stafi v Judecatoria Roman, Romania
[2023] EWHC 429 (Admin)
Georgeta Ghinea v Gaesti Law Court, Romania
23 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
High Court
Two people were convicted of assault in Romania and fled to the UK. A judge in the UK had to decide if it was fair to send them back to Romania to finish their sentences. The UK judge decided that the paperwork from Romania didn't clearly show whether the two people were present at all the important court hearings. Because of this missing information, the UK judge decided it wasn't fair to send them back to Romania.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition order from Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
- •Appellants are Romanian nationals convicted in absentia for assault in Romania.
- •Appellants left Romania before serving their sentences.
- •Extradition resisted on grounds of non-compliance with section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Appeal focuses solely on the section 20 point.
- •Arrest Warrants certified by the National Crime Agency.
- •Appellants were represented by separate lawyers and had interpreters throughout proceedings.
- •District Judge found appellants deliberately absconded and did not believe their evidence.
- •Arrest Warrants did not clearly state attendance at all appeal hearings.
Legal Principles
Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to European Arrest Warrants.
Extradition Act 2003
Section 20 of the 2003 Act implements Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and should be interpreted consistently with it and Article 6 ECHR.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin)
Section 20 requires discharge if convicted in absence without deliberate absence and no right to retrial.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 20
Burden of proof on requesting authority to satisfy section 20 to the criminal standard.
Nowicki v Military Court of Gydnia, Poland [2011] EWHC 1962 (Admin) and section 206 of the 2003 Act
Interpretation of "trial" in section 20(3) aligns with "trial resulting in the decision" in Article 4a(1)(a)(i).
Cretu [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) at [34]
Limited scope for challenges to EAW information beyond ambiguity, confusion, or abuse of process.
Cretu [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) at [35]
"Trial resulting in the decision" in Article 4a(1) refers to the final instance determining guilt and sentencing after merits re-examination.
Tupikas [2017] 4 WLR 188
In appeals with factual and legal re-examination, only the appeal proceedings constitute "the trial resulting in the decision."
Foster Taylor v the Prosecutor General’s Office of Florence [2019] EWHC 2938
"Deliberately absenting" equates to unequivocal waiver of the right to be present at trial, requiring awareness of consequences.
Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office Italy [2024] UKSC 9
Outcomes
Appeals allowed; Appellants discharged.
Arrest Warrants failed to demonstrate presence at all material appeal hearings, thus not satisfying section 20(7) of the 2003 Act.