Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania

Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 must be interpreted consistently with article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The relevant trial is the scheduled event resulting in conviction and sentence. A Convention-compliant summons can establish deliberate absence despite lack of actual knowledge. Required statements in a European arrest warrant satisfy the criminal burden of proof; independent investigation is generally inappropriate. A statement assuring a qualifying retrial establishes entitlement to it.

Suicide risk bars extradition only where the high threshold of injustice or oppression is met after considering protective measures. Specific assurances require a strong evidential foundation. An abuse challenge based on warrant errors requires misleading particulars and corrective facts beyond legitimate dispute. Sentence enhancement for previous offending does not itself establish that other offences have been omitted.

Mugurel Cretu appealed against an order made by District Judge Goldspring at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his extradition to Romania. The Local Court of Suceava sought his surrender under a European arrest warrant to serve a sentence of five years and ten months for aggravated burglary. He had been convicted in his absence, and his conviction had been confirmed on appeal. A court-appointed lawyer had represented him without instructions.

The district judge found that Cretu had deliberately absented himself from his trial. He also rejected objections based on Cretu’s psychiatric condition and suicide risk, and on an allegedly misleading description of the sentence. Permission to appeal covered those three grounds. The respondent additionally relied on the warrant’s assurance that Cretu would have a right to a retrial.

The central issues were the interpretation of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 following changes in the status of the relevant Framework Decisions, the sufficiency of protection against suicide, and whether the warrant misrepresented the sentence for which surrender was sought.

The appeal was dismissed. Irwin J agreed with Burnett LJ’s judgment.

1. Following the changes effective on 1 December 2014 and the United Kingdom’s decision to opt back into the relevant Framework Decisions, the conforming-interpretation principle in Criminal proceedings against Pupino applied to the Extradition Act 2003. On its contrary conclusion, Podlas v Koszalin District Court, Poland was per incuriam. Section 20 therefore had to be read consistently with article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (paras [13]–[18]).

2. The trial meant the scheduled event resulting in conviction and sentence, rather than a general prosecution process. A person summoned as article 4a envisaged was to be treated as deliberately absent where proceeding without him complied with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even if he lacked actual knowledge of the date and place. That assessment belonged to the issuing judicial authority. The warrant made the necessary statement, which the further information did not undermine. The court also stated that a person who mandated a lawyer to defend him was treated as present; appointment without instructions did not satisfy that alternative (paras [6]; [27]–[34]; [39]–[40]).

3. The requesting state retained the criminal burden of proof under section 206. The required statements in the warrant discharged that burden. Further information should generally be sought only to resolve ambiguity or confusion, or possibly in connection with abuse of process; information supplied could assist interpretation. Mutual trust excluded an independent investigation into the foreign proceedings. The warrant’s alternatives could overlap. Its retrial assurance also established entitlement under section 20(5), providing an independently sufficient answer. The executing court should accept that assurance rather than construe Romanian legislation so as to contradict it (paras [34]–[43]).

4. The district judge was entitled to reject the section 25 objection. The guidance in Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz was neither per incuriam nor wrong. Substantial suicide risk alone did not establish oppression where effective protection could be expected. An EU state was presumed to discharge its preventive responsibilities absent strong evidence. As explained in Cogan v The Provincial Court of Almeria, a concern requiring specific assurances needed a strong evidential foundation. Reports criticising Romanian psychiatric provision did not show inadequate protection for prisoners known to be at risk of suicide. Successful challenges on this basis would be very rare (paras [45]–[52]).

5. The abuse objection failed on two complete grounds. Under Zakrzewski v Regional Court of Lodz, Poland, the corrective facts had to be clear and beyond legitimate dispute; they were not. The objection was also factually mistaken. Romanian sentencing used previous offending to enhance the sentence for the burglary, rather than activating earlier sentences. Cretu was sought to serve the burglary sentence, and no omission of other offences was established (paras [53]–[55]).

• High Court (Administrative Court): In [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) , dismissed all three grounds of appeal against the extradition order.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Goldspring ordered extradition to Romania on 16 September 2015 under the European arrest warrant issued on 10 December 2014.
• Romanian criminal proceedings: The sentence was imposed at first instance on 10 November 2010 and finally confirmed on appeal on 1 February 2011. These proceedings supplied the conviction underlying the extradition request.