Biro v Gheorgheni Courthouse

In an extradition appeal based on feared ill-treatment, the presumption that a Member State’s prison authorities will provide adequate protection can be rebutted only by clear and cogent evidence. Evidence of earlier ill-treatment does not suffice where the evidence also shows that protective measures were provided and there is no evidence that standards have diminished. The court may also prevent extradition proceedings being used to enable a person to serve a foreign sentence in the United Kingdom where the requesting state has not agreed to that solution.

The appellant challenged a conviction warrant issued by the Romanian judicial authority, seeking to avoid serving a three-year sentence in Romania. He accepted the conviction and sentence but feared physical and psychological abuse if returned. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court, before Judge Daphne Wickham on 23 July 2012, rejected his submission under article 3 of the European Convention and ordered surrender. The central issues were whether the evidence rebutted the presumption of adequate protection in Romanian prisons and whether the appeal should be delayed or otherwise managed to allow the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom.

1. The appeal was dismissed. There was no proper basis for concluding that extradition would infringe the appellant’s rights under article 3 of the European Convention.
2. The court accepted that the presumption that the Romanian authorities would provide adequate protection could be rebutted by clear and cogent evidence. The material before the court did not do so.
3. The appellant’s evidence related principally to a complaint about treatment in prison in 2006. His own evidence showed that, after being placed in segregation or isolation, he was not subjected to ill-treatment and was ultimately afforded protective measures. There was no evidence indicating any diminution in the relevant standard during the following six years.
4. The deputy senior district judge had been obviously correct on the material before her. No new material justified a different conclusion.
5. It would be an abuse of process to delay the appeal or take another step merely to enable the appellant to serve the sentence in the United Kingdom rather than Romania, particularly as there was no suggestion that the Romanian authorities would co-operate with such an arrangement.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Judge Daphne Wickham considered the extradition request on 23 July 2012 and rejected the appellant’s article 3 submission.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was dismissed; the magistrates’ court decision was upheld.