Georgeta Ghinea v Gaesti Law Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania
6 March 2024
[2024] UKSC 10
Supreme Court
A man was convicted of a crime in Romania without being present. The UK court had to decide if he'd get a new trial if sent back. The Supreme Court said the law needs a clear 'yes' or 'no', not a maybe. Because there wasn't a clear 'yes', the court let the man go free and cancelled the order to send him back to Romania.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the interpretation of section 20(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Appellant convicted in absentia in Romania for burglary.
- •European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for surrender to Romania.
- •Key issue: whether section 20(5) requires an unconditional entitlement to retrial in the requesting state or merely a right to apply for one.
- •Lower courts held appellant entitled to a retrial, based on interpretation of section 20(5) and relevant EU Framework Decisions.
- •EAW did not explicitly confirm a right to retrial (box 3.4 not ticked).
- •Ambiguity in the EAW regarding appellant's representation at trial.
- •Further information requests to Romanian authorities yielded insufficient clarity.
Legal Principles
Proper construction of section 20(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Extradition Act 2003, section 20(5)
Conforming interpretation of the Extradition Act 2003 with the Amended Framework Decision (FD 2002, amended by FD 2009).
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin); Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA; Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA
Right to a retrial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6; Sejdovic v Italy
Interpretation of 'entitled' in section 20(5) as requiring an unconditional right, not merely a right to apply.
Bohm v Romania [2011] EWHC 2671 (Admin)
The role of the EAW and the information required under Article 4a of the Amended Framework Decision.
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA; Article 4a
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Lower courts misconstrued section 20(5) by accepting a contingent right to a retrial as sufficient. The EAW lacked a clear confirmation of an unconditional right to retrial. The court found the lower court's reasoning in BP v Romania to be incorrect.
Appellant's discharge ordered.
Section 20(5) requires an unconditional entitlement to a retrial. As this was not established, the appellant should have been discharged under section 20(7).
Extradition order quashed.
Based on the incorrect interpretation of section 20(5) by the lower courts.