Seprey-Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc, Romania

The High Court has no practical basis for reopening a final extradition appeal after surrender under a European Arrest Warrant. Reopening must be necessary to avoid real injustice, requiring a practical remedy for the individual. After extradition, discharge under the Extradition Act 2003 will normally be ineffective, and a declaration may impose no legal obligation on the requesting state. An alternative effective remedy is not confined to judicial remedies. Finality is particularly important in extradition proceedings.

The claimant had been extradited to Romania under conviction European Arrest Warrants after Supperstone J dismissed his appeal concerning Romanian prison conditions: [2015] EWHC 3022 (Admin). The earlier decision relied on a Romanian assurance that UK extraditees would be held in Article 3-compliant conditions. After extradition, the claimant alleged that the assurance had been breached and sought to reopen the appeal under rule 50.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, or alternatively obtain a declaration.

The issues were whether the court could reopen a final extradition appeal after surrender, whether reopening was necessary to avoid real injustice, and whether an effective alternative remedy existed.

1. Application dismissed. Rule 50.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules requires more than a real injustice. Reopening must be necessary to avoid it, in exceptional circumstances and where no alternative effective remedy exists. Necessity requires consideration of whether reopening would provide a practical remedy in the individual case.
2. Once an extradition order has been enforced and the requested person extradited, discharge from the effect of the European Arrest Warrant would have no practical effect. A declaration might express disapproval, but would not legally require the Romanian authorities to alter the claimant’s detention conditions. The court should eschew a merely symbolic remedy.
3. The alternative-effective-remedy requirement is not confined to judicial remedies. Relevant remedies in the requesting state may include proceedings before its courts, the European Court of Human Rights, an ombudsman and human rights bodies.
4. Pilecki v Poland and Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary were distinguishable. In both cases the appellate process in the United Kingdom remained pending when the requested person was mistakenly removed. They did not concern reopening a final decision after extradition.
5. Finality carries particular weight in extradition proceedings. The court was not an appropriate forum to resolve disputed evidence about present prison conditions in Romania, particularly where the requesting authorities had not been invited to respond. Rule 50.27 had no purchase, at least in EAW cases, once the person had been extradited pursuant to a final decision. Any remedy lay elsewhere.

District Judge Coleman ordered extradition on 22 December 2014. Supperstone J dismissed the claimant’s appeal on 5 October 2015: [2015] EWHC 3022 (Admin). The claimant was extradited in December 2015 and subsequently applied to reopen the final appeal.