Marginean v The Alba Julia Court of Law, Romania

In a conviction-based extradition case, the warrant need only provide sufficient particulars of the conviction to enable the statutory requirements to be assessed. The Article 8 balance is assessed by reference to the total criminality for which extradition is sought, rather than by weighing each offence separately. Under Article 3, overcrowding may bar extradition where there are substantial grounds for a real risk of ill-treatment. Reliable assurances concerning minimum personal space may eliminate that risk. Other prison conditions will generally establish a bar only where the evidence shows systemic problems, or identifies conditions at the prison in which the person will serve the sentence that create such a risk.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Zani on 10 February 2015 for his return to Romania under a conviction warrant. He had been convicted of several offences and sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment. The challenge concerned the sufficiency of the warrant’s particulars, the proportionality of extradition under Article 8, and the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 because of Romanian prison conditions.

The central issues were whether the warrant sufficiently identified an extradition offence, whether the Article 8 assessment could be divided between individual offences, and whether the evidence and Romanian assurances established a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant gave sufficient particulars of the convictions for the purposes of section 65 of the Extradition Act. In a conviction case, the required detail differs from that required in an accusation case. The warrant’s description of the conduct, victims, dates and the appellant’s presence in Romania was sufficient to establish that the offences were extradition offences.[7]-[8]
2. The Article 8 challenge could not properly be assessed offence by offence. The public interest had to be assessed by reference to the total criminality for which extradition was sought, reflected in the aggregate sentence of five years and four months.[9]-[10] The appellant’s family-life case was weakened because he was not the primary carer of any minor child, there was another wage earner in the family, and he had left Romania knowing that he had a sentencing hearing to attend. His overall offending was substantial.[11]-[12]
3. On Article 3, the approach in Florea was applied. Substantial grounds for a real risk arising from overcrowding could bar extradition, with relevant minimum personal-space figures of 3m² in closed conditions and 2m² in open conditions. Reliable Romanian undertakings meeting those standards could eliminate the risk.[13]-[14]
4. Overcrowding was not the only possible source of Article 3 ill-treatment. Food, medical treatment, ventilation, sanitation and the state of prison premises might also be relevant. Unless the receiving prison was identified, prison-specific conditions that varied over time would not generally establish a bar. Such matters would normally do so only where systemic evidence made it likely that the individual would encounter them. The evidence did not meet that threshold in Romania.[15] The assurances had also been held sufficient in Blaj & Ors v Romania, and Oprea & Ors v Romania did not cast doubt on that approach.[16]-[18]

High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s return to Romania on 10 February 2015. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Judge’s conclusions on the warrant, Article 8 and Article 3 issues.