Iftimie v Romanian Judicial Authority

An extradition warrant must provide clear and internally consistent information about whether the requested person appeared at trial and, if not, whether an applicable ground under section 20 is established. The mutually exclusive options recording attendance and non-attendance cannot be ticked inconsistently. A finding that the person attended is unavailable where the warrant is contradictory and the issuing authority has not been asked for clarification. A distinct case concerning multiple non-exclusive alternatives does not justify treating mutually exclusive answers as compatible.

The appellant challenged District Judge Blake’s decision ordering his return to Romania to serve a sentence of three years and six months for two robberies. The warrant stated both that he had appeared at trial and that, having been absent, he had been represented by a lawyer. The appellant said that he had been in the United Kingdom and had not attended the 2014 trial. The central issues were whether the warrant complied with section 20 and whether the District Judge had properly assessed the Article 8 considerations.

1. The appeal was allowed and the warrant was quashed. The Romanian Judicial Authority remained entitled to issue a fresh warrant containing the necessary material.
2. The warrant was internally inconsistent. It recorded that the appellant appeared in person, while also completing an option applicable only where he did not appear and was represented by a lawyer. Those alternatives were mutually exclusive.
3. Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) was distinguishable. In that case, the alternatives beneath the non-attendance section could properly coexist. That reasoning did not apply to the separate and mutually exclusive answers concerning attendance and non-attendance.
4. The District Judge’s conclusion that the appellant had attended was not open to him without further information from the Judicial Authority. The warrant’s contradiction was particularly material because the appellant’s evidence was that he had not attended the relevant trial.
5. The District Judge also erred in treating the appellant as a fugitive who had breached his sentence by coming to the United Kingdom. The evidence did not establish such a breach, and the circumstances made attendance at the later trial uncertain.
6. The defects amounted to a breach of section 20. The court also observed that future warrants should explain clearly how any suspended or merged sentence affected the ultimate sentence and should, where appropriate, briefly state the circumstances of the merged offence.

The judgment records an appeal from District Judge Blake’s extradition decision. No citation for the District Judge’s decision is stated.