Romanian Judicial Authority v Oprean

When deciding whether to grant bail pending an extradition hearing, the court must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would fail to surrender. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must account for the seriousness of the conviction and sentence, the person’s conduct after conviction, the availability of further appeals, ties to the United Kingdom, past cooperation, and the effectiveness of proposed conditions. A person who leaves the requesting state while an appeal is pending may properly be treated as a fugitive from justice. Where the risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated by bail conditions, continued custody may be just and proportionate, particularly where the extradition hearing is imminent.

The Romanian Judicial Authority appealed against a decision of District Judge Rose at Westminster Magistrates’ Court granting Mr Oprean bail pending an extradition hearing. Mr Oprean, a Romanian national, had been convicted in Romania of a serious sexual offence and his sentence had subsequently been increased to seven years’ imprisonment. He had left Romania for the United Kingdom while his appeal remained pending.

The Judicial Authority submitted that the bail conditions were insufficient and that there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Oprean would fail to surrender. Mr Oprean relied on his residence, employment, family ties, cooperation on arrest and previous opportunities to remain in the United Kingdom without absconding. The central issue was whether bail should continue pending the extradition hearing.

1. The appeal was allowed. It was just and proportionate to remand Mr Oprean in custody pending the extradition hearing.
2. The relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Oprean would fail to surrender if released on bail. That assessment required consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the seriousness of the offence, the substantial seven-year sentence, the strength of his ties to the United Kingdom, his conduct after conviction, and the extent to which bail conditions could mitigate the risk.
3. Mr Oprean’s departure from Romania while his appeal was ongoing rendered him a fugitive from justice, even though no express restriction prevented his departure. The significance of his earlier cooperation had to be reassessed in light of the later Romanian decision confirming the conviction and increasing the sentence, particularly as no further appeal appeared to be available.
4. The court took account of the absence of any other offending history, the apparent cooperation with the authorities, the surrender of travel documents and the proposed conditions. However, those matters did not sufficiently reduce the risk. The court was not satisfied that Mr Oprean’s cooperation had been consistent or diligent, and the fact that he had made enquiries about a European Arrest Warrant did not demonstrate an offer to submit to it.
5. Although the extradition hearing was shortly to take place, the combination of the serious conviction, the final sentence, Mr Oprean’s departure from Romania and the uncertainty concerning future cooperation established substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by the Romanian Judicial Authority was allowed. Mr Oprean was remanded in custody pending the extradition hearing.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Rose granted bail subject to conditions on 29 March 2018.