UK Supreme Court clarifies right to retrial in extradition cases under Extradition Act 2003

Citation: [2024] UKSC 10
Judgment on

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court case Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10 critically examines the obligations of the UK under the Extradition Act 2003 when determining the rights to a retrial of a person convicted in their absence in a requesting state. This case elucidates the standards required for a UK court to order extradition and the interplay of those standards with the European legal framework, namely the Amended Framework Decision after the FD 2009 amendment, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Key Facts

Ionut-Bogdan Merticariu appealed against an extradition order to Romania, where he was convicted in absentia for burglary. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of section 20(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires a UK judge to determine if an individual, having been convicted in absence, would be entitled to a retrial or on appeal to a review amounting to a retrial after extradition.

The issuing judicial authority in Romania did not confirm that Merticariu would have an automatic right to a retrial, stating only that he could request one, prompting the legal dispute. Previous case laws, such as BP v Romania and Zeqaj v Albania, influenced lower court decisions but were later determined to be incorrectly applied.

The UKSC focused on several key legal principles:

  1. Interpretation of the Extradition Act 2003, Section 20(5): The court clarified that the natural and ordinary meaning of “entitled to a retrial” indicates a substantive right, not merely the right to apply for one. This requires the judge to decisively rule whether the person has an actual entitlement to a retrial, not contingent on future findings by the requesting state.

  2. Relationship with the Amended Framework Decision: The deletion of Article 5(1) of the FD 2002 and its replacement with “right to a retrial” in Article 4a signified a shift in the legal landscape, reflecting the requirement of an automatic entitlement to a retrial rather than the opportunity to request one.

  3. Conformity with the ECHR, Article 6: The principle that any refusal to reopen in absentia proceedings without evidence of a waiver of the right to be present constitutes a “flagrant denial of justice” aligns with the requirement for an entitlement to a retrial.

  4. Principle of Mutual Recognition: EU law predicates that the executing judicial authority’s decisions should be recognized by the requesting state, upholding mutual trust and confidence within the EU’s judicial cooperation.

  5. EU Directive on Presumption of Innocence: Though referenced, the Directive’s conditional provisions for new trials do not override the need for a clear right to a retrial for extradition under UK law.

Outcomes

The appeal was allowed by the UKSC, which emphasized that the District Judge should have ordered Merticariu’s discharge pursuant to section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 due to the absence of evidence from the Romanian authorities that he was entitled to a retrial. This decision quashed the previous extradition order.

Conclusion

Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10 reinforces the stringent requirements for extradition under the Extradition Act 2003, ensuring the right to a retrial means an automatic entitlement, not a conditional right to apply. The ruling rectifies misapplications of law in previous cases and realigns UK extradition law with European legal norms, ensuring compliance with the right to a fair trial under the ECHR. This judgment has significant implications for how UK courts consider extradition requests, particularly concerning convictions in absentia.

Related Summaries