Tulceanu v Bacay Law Court, Romania

Under the European Arrest Warrant system, the requested state will generally not examine the propriety of the requesting state’s conviction or trial. Intervention may nevertheless be justified by unimpeachable evidence of a clear breach of Article 6, but only in a very clear and strong case. General evidence of corruption or defects in the requesting state’s justice system is insufficient unless it materially relates to the individual case. An appellate court will ordinarily refuse evidence that could and should have been placed before the district judge, absent a good explanation for its late production.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Romania. The extradition was sought so that he could serve sentences totalling five years for driving offences involving death, serious injury, drink and driving without a licence.

He alleged that the Romanian proceedings and his defence lawyer were corrupt. He had initially denied being the person named in the warrant and later admitted that he had lied about not attending the Romanian trial. The central issues were whether the district judge had been entitled to reject those allegations and whether general late-produced material about corruption in Romania should be admitted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had properly refused an adjournment sought to obtain evidence about the propriety of the Romanian trial. The European Arrest Warrant system depends on mutual recognition and does not ordinarily permit the requested state to re-investigate the requesting state’s conviction or trial.

2. There may be exceptional circumstances in which the court should refuse extradition because unimpeachable evidence demonstrates that something has gone seriously wrong, for example through a clear breach of Article 6. Such intervention requires a very clear and strong case. The appellant’s unsupported allegations did not approach that threshold.

3. The general rule is that evidence which could and should have been produced before the district judge will not be entertained on appeal where there is no good excuse for its late production. The material tendered before the High Court was general in nature and did not address the circumstances of the appellant’s case. Even if admitted, it could not undermine the district judge’s findings.

4. The district judge was entitled to treat the appellant as wholly unreliable after he falsely claimed to be his brother and gave false evidence about the Romanian proceedings. There was no proper basis for the High Court to go behind those findings.

5. The appeal was wholly without merit. No wasted costs order was made, although the court warned counsel and solicitors that arguments known to be without merit must not be pursued merely because the client wished them to be advanced.

• District judge: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania to serve sentences totalling five years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.