Sandru v Government of Romania

Article 8 proportionality provides a high threshold for resisting extradition. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements carries substantial weight, so success ordinarily requires striking and unusual interference with private or family life. The triviality of the extradition offence, or the apparent severity of the foreign sentence, will generally not establish disproportionality. Domestic courts should not review the appropriateness of a foreign sentence, particularly where they lack the cultural and factual information available to the sentencing court. Once the statutory extradition requirements are satisfied, extradition should be ordered unless the Article 8 case is sufficiently compelling.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Nicholas Evans’s order for his extradition to Romania under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. A Romanian court had sentenced him in his absence to three years’ imprisonment for qualified theft after he stole and destroyed ten chickens. The suspension of an earlier sentence had subsequently been annulled on appeal, also in his absence.

The claimant relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He argued that the delay, the absence of knowledge of the sentence, the relatively trivial offence, the sentence imposed and alleged factual errors made extradition disproportionate. The central issue was whether the case disclosed striking and unusual features making extradition incompatible with Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Divisional Court, comprising Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Openshaw, held that extradition would not breach Article 8 and that the district judge was right to order extradition.
2. The proportionality exercise required the court to weigh the interference with private and family life against the legitimate and substantial public interest in honouring extradition arrangements. Although an exceptionality test must not be applied, the authorities showed that striking and unusual facts would ordinarily be required before extradition could be disproportionate. The claimant’s limited residence in the United Kingdom, marriage to a Romanian national, absence of children or caring responsibilities, and lack of evidence of serious health or family consequences did not meet that threshold.
3. The delay and the claimant’s asserted lack of knowledge of the sentence carried, at most, marginal weight. Alleged factual errors were irrelevant where they did not engage the Article 8 balancing exercise.
4. The triviality of the offence and the length or apparent severity of the sentence were not, in the circumstances, proper bases for refusing extradition. Section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 imposed a minimum sentence requirement in a conviction appeal. Once that and the other statutory requirements were met, the court could not refuse extradition because it considered the offence trivial or the foreign sentence disproportionate.
5. The domestic court was not equipped to review the appropriateness of a sentence imposed by a foreign court. Any challenge to the sentence should be made in Romania. Lord Justice Elias expressly doubted the contrary obiter observation in Zak v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz Poland that the seriousness of the offence could generally be placed in the Article 8 balance. Mr Justice Openshaw agreed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — appeal dismissed. The court upheld District Judge Nicholas Evans’s order for extradition under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.