Iacob v Courthouse of Bacau (Romania)

For a conviction European Arrest Warrant, validity depends on whether the warrant, read as a whole, gives sufficient particulars of the offences and sentences for which extradition is sought. Box B is important but not conclusive. A broad purposive construction is appropriate, consistent with mutual trust, provided the requested person can understand the convictions and any extradition bars. An aggregate sentence does not invalidate a warrant where the warrant shows that the sentence to be served relates to the particularised extradition offences, rather than to unparticularised conduct. Article 8 family interests must be balanced against the seriousness of the offending, the sentence, and the United Kingdom’s international extradition obligations.

The appellant challenged an order made by Senior District Judge Riddle on 2 October 2015 for his extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned three fish-poaching or theft-related offences and a fourth robbery offence. The District Judge discharged the appellant in relation to the robbery because it was insufficiently particularised, but ordered extradition on the remaining offences.

Permission to appeal was granted on whether the warrant was invalid under section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant also sought to revive an Article 8 challenge following his marriage and the birth of his child, and sought to rely on expert evidence about Romanian law. The central issues were whether the aggregate sentence was sufficiently particularised and whether extradition would be disproportionate interference with family life.

1. Preliminary matters. Permission was granted to argue the Article 8 issue despite delay, because the appellant’s family circumstances had materially changed. Permission to rely on further expert evidence concerning Romanian law was refused. The material was not decisive and the existing material was sufficient.
2. Section 2 validity. Applying the principles identified in Edutanu v Romania [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin), the warrant had to be considered as a whole. Box B was important but not conclusive. The substance of the inquiry was whether the requested person had sufficient information to understand the convictions and sentences and whether any bar to extradition applied. Subject to that requirement, the warrant should receive a broad purposive construction reflecting mutual trust.
3. The warrant separately identified the fishing-equipment offence, the electrical-fishing offence and the theft offence, together with the sentences imposed. It explained the cancellation of the previously suspended sentence and the merger of the relevant penalties. The operative sentence of two years and six months was the sentence imposed for the particularised extradition offences. There was no proper basis for treating the additional six months as relating solely to the discharged robbery or to another unparticularised offence. The warrant was therefore valid, and no section 10 or specialty-rights concern arose.
4. Article 8. The court had regard to the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his wife and their child. The child’s interests were a primary consideration, but the offending was not trivial and the sentence was significant. On the facts, the weight accorded to the United Kingdom’s international obligations and respect for the judicial systems of other EU states comfortably outweighed the family’s Article 8 rights.
5. The appeal failed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle dated 2 October 2015.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Riddle ordered extradition on 15 October 2015, after discharging the appellant in relation to the insufficiently particularised robbery offence.