Lupu v Bacau Court Romania

In bail applications connected with a conviction European Arrest Warrant, the prospect of an Article 8 or prison-conditions argument does not by itself justify release. Where the appellant faces a substantial custodial sentence and presents a strong flight risk, very strong circumstances are required before bail can be granted. Family ties, a relative’s medical needs, employment and settled accommodation may be insufficient where the circumstances indicate that the appellant came to the United Kingdom, at least in part, to avoid imprisonment and is unlikely to surrender voluntarily.

The appellant, a Romanian national, appealed against repeated refusals of bail pending an extradition hearing. Romania sought his extradition under a conviction European Arrest Warrant so that he could serve a two-year-six-month sentence for bribery offences. The appellant relied on family ties in the United Kingdom, his wife’s serious medical needs, accommodation and employment, and possible arguments concerning Article 8 and prison conditions.

The central issue was whether those circumstances overcame the risk that he would abscond rather than return to Romania to serve the sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. Bail was refused because the appellant presented too strong a flight risk.
2. A conviction European Arrest Warrant concerned enforcement of an existing custodial sentence. The appellant had known of his conviction and sentence, had appealed them, and had nevertheless come to the United Kingdom. His conduct indicated that avoiding imprisonment was at least part of the reason for his departure.
3. It required very strong circumstances for a substantial prison sentence not to be served in the executing state on the basis of Article 8 or a prison-conditions argument. The possible availability of such arguments did not remove the attraction of avoiding surrender.
4. The wife’s medical condition was not persuasive for bail purposes and was not obviously a strong basis for a future Article 8 claim. Family members in the United Kingdom and Ireland could assist her, but the appellant’s dispersed family connections also created opportunities to move around and avoid discovery.
5. The appellant’s accommodation and employment were insufficient to overcome the flight risk. The application was dismissed.

The judgment records an appeal against three refusals of bail by district judges. No citation for those decisions is stated. The High Court dismissed the appeal and refused bail.