Suceava District Court, Romania v Marian Gurau
[2023] EWHC 439 (Admin)
Popoviciu v Curtea De Apel Bucharest (Romania)
8 November 2023
[2023] UKSC 39
Supreme Court
A man was supposed to be sent back to Romania to serve a prison sentence. A court in the UK said he shouldn't go because the judge in Romania might have been unfair. Before the highest court could decide, Romania cancelled the request to send him back. The highest court explained that in cases like this, you need strong evidence of unfairness to stop someone being extradited.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Gabriel Popoviciu (respondent) was sought for extradition to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated August 3, 2017, following his conviction for conspiracy and bribery.
- •The respondent appealed his extradition to the High Court, which allowed the appeal due to concerns about the impartiality of the Romanian trial judge, Judge Tudoran.
- •The High Court admitted fresh evidence suggesting a close, undisclosed relationship between Judge Tudoran and a key prosecution witness, Becali, raising concerns about bias and corruption.
- •The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal the High Court's decision.
- •The EAW was withdrawn by the Romanian authorities before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment.
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003, sections 27(1)(a), 27(5)(a), 27(5)(b), 32(4)(a), 43(4)
Extradition Act 2003
Soering principle: Extraditing state may bear responsibility for breaches of Articles 5 and 6 ECHR if there's a real risk of flagrant denial of justice.
Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439
Standard of proof in extradition cases: In conviction cases, a flagrant denial of justice must be proven on the balance of probabilities, except in cases involving evidence obtained through torture.
Strasbourg case law (Othman, Drozd, Merabishvili), English case law (Lezon, Kaderli)
Article 5 ECHR: Right to liberty and security; Article 6 ECHR: Right to a fair trial.
European Convention on Human Rights
Fenyvesi criteria for admitting fresh evidence in extradition appeals.
Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin)
Article 5(4) ECHR: Requires a legal mechanism to assess the lawfulness of detention after conviction if new issues arise.
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
High Court allowed the respondent's appeal and quashed the extradition order.
Substantial grounds existed to believe there was a real risk the respondent's trial was flagrantly unfair due to the trial judge's undisclosed relationship with a key prosecution witness.
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The EAW was withdrawn; the High Court misapplied the standard of proof; fresh evidence was not admissible; while a potential lack of remedy in Romania was arguable, it was not necessary to remit this issue due to the EAW withdrawal.