Sonea v Mehedinti District Court

Under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the nature of a European arrest warrant is determined by the statements and information required by section 2. A person alleged to have been convicted remains the subject of a conviction warrant even where he may have an unfettered right to a retrial. Questions concerning absence from trial and retrial rights arise when the statutory sequence reaches section 20. Courts must follow that sequence carefully and should not use principles developed under earlier extradition legislation to recategorise the warrant.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Romania under a European arrest warrant. The warrant stated that he had been convicted in absentia of attempted first-degree murder and sought his arrest for the purpose of serving his sentence. The appellant argued that, because he was entitled to a full retrial in Romania, the warrant should have been drafted as an accusation warrant.

The appeal concerned the interaction between the warrant classifications in section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the retrial provisions in section 20. The Divisional Court also considered whether earlier authorities under repealed extradition legislation assisted the appellant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was properly drafted as a conviction warrant.
2. The statutory scheme requires a step-by-step approach. Section 2 identifies whether the warrant is an accusation warrant or a conviction warrant. Sections 10 and 11 then determine the judge’s next statutory steps. Where the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction, the judge proceeds under section 20.
3. The questions under section 20, including whether the person was convicted in his presence, deliberately absented himself, and would be entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial, arise only at that stage. They do not determine the nature of the warrant at the earlier section 2 stage.
4. The fact that the appellant might have an unfettered right to a retrial did not convert the warrant into an accusation warrant. The warrant contained the statement required for a conviction warrant, and the appellant fell within the statutory definition of being unlawfully at large after conviction.
5. Caldarelli v Court of Naples [2008] UKHL 51 concerned a warrant which, on the agreed facts and its terms, possessed the attributes of an accusation warrant. It did not support recategorisation of the present warrant. The relevant lesson was to follow the statutory sequence under the 2003 Act.
6. Authorities decided under earlier legislation, including Zezza [1983] 1 AC 46, Foy v The Governor of Brixton Prison and Anr and Hewitson v The Governor of France [2005] EWHC 135 (Admin), did not assist where the 2003 Act supplied the applicable framework.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the order of District Judge Tubbs in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court directing extradition to Romania.