Craiova Court of Appeal (Romania) v Vassos

An extradition court must assess whether the requesting state presents a real risk that the requested person will be punished by reason of nationality by examining the foreign sentencing decision as a whole. A reference to foreign nationality in an isolated passage does not necessarily establish that nationality was an operative sentencing factor. On an appeal involving interpretation of a foreign judgment, the reviewing court should allow the district judge an appropriate margin of appreciation, but that margin is narrow where the task is one the appellate court can perform equally well. The court should also proceed on the assumption that the requesting state will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Romanian judicial authority appealed against District Judge Ashworth’s decision to discharge the respondent from an extradition warrant. The warrant concerned a Romanian conviction and a sentence increased from six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, to one year’s immediate imprisonment. The District Judge concluded that there was a reasonable chance that the respondent had been punished more heavily because he was not Romanian, contrary to section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The central issue was whether the Romanian court’s reference to the offence having been committed by a foreign person was merely descriptive or operated as a factor in fixing the sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The reference by the District Judge to section 13(a) was a typographical or dictation error. His reasoning concerned section 13(b), namely the alleged risk that the respondent would be punished by reason of nationality.
2. The appellate court should generally respect the district judge’s factual conclusions and interfere only on recognised grounds, including legal error, an unsupported finding, failure to consider a relevant matter, reliance on an irrelevant matter, or perversity. The observations in Belbin v Regional Court of Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin) were directed to appeals turning on proportionality, but remained informative.
3. Where the issue is the interpretation of a foreign court’s written judgment, the district judge’s margin of appreciation is necessarily narrow. The appellate court can perform that task equally well. The court should also assume that Romania will act consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. The Romanian judgment had to be read as a whole. Although its concluding passage listed the respondent’s foreign status among the characteristics relevant to the sentence, the preceding detailed reasoning identified the aggravating features of the offence and offender, proportionality, rehabilitation, social reintegration and public confidence. It contained no other suggestion that nationality or race was relevant.
5. The isolated reference therefore did not provide a proper foundation for concluding that there was a serious possibility that race or nationality had affected sentencing. The District Judge had erred by failing to consider the significance of the remainder of the Romanian judgment. The order discharging the respondent was quashed and the case was remitted to the District Judge to proceed as required if he had decided the relevant question differently.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2017] EWHC 682 (Admin) allowed the Romanian authority’s appeal, quashed the discharge order and remitted the case to the District Judge.
• District Judge Ashworth: discharged the respondent from the extradition warrant under section 13(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, finding a reasonable chance that he had been punished more heavily because of his nationality.