Miculescu v Petrosani Court of Law, Romania

In an extradition case engaging Article 8, the court must balance the requested person’s private and family life against the weighty public interest in honouring extradition arrangements. There is no requirement of exceptional circumstances. The best interests of children are a primary consideration, but they are not invariably decisive. Delay may reduce the public interest in extradition and increase the impact on family life, but family circumstances are not trump cards. Where the lower court’s balance depends materially on a mistaken finding of fact, the appellate court must undertake the balance afresh.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Ashworth on 8 February 2016 requiring his extradition to Romania to serve a one-year sentence imposed in his absence for assaulting a police officer. Permission to appeal was limited to the question whether surrender would breach his Article 8 rights.

The appellant argued that the District Judge had wrongly treated him as a fugitive by conflating the alleged assault on the police officer with an earlier incident outside a public house. He also relied on his strong relationship with his step-daughter and his younger child. The central issue was whether the District Judge had struck the Article 8 balance correctly and, if not, how that balance should be conducted.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that surrender would not breach the appellant’s Article 8 rights.
2. The applicable approach was established in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9, HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin). Article 8 is qualified. The court must balance the interference with private and family life against the public interest in extradition. There is no test of exceptionality.
3. The best interests of children are always a primary consideration, although they are not invariably paramount. Delay may reduce the weight of the public interest and increase the impact on family life. The circumstances must be considered carefully rather than treated as a matter of labels.
4. The District Judge had conflated two separate alleged assaults. The finding that the appellant had deliberately fled prosecution was therefore unsound and had affected the extradition side of the balance. The High Court accordingly carried out the Celinski balance afresh.
5. The appellant bore no culpability for leaving Romania, and the delay had allowed his family life to develop. Those matters were important but were not decisive. The requesting authority was not to blame for the delay, and there remained a strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements in relation to a serious assault on a police officer. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Ashworth’s extradition order was challenged on Article 8 grounds. The appeal was dismissed.