Adamescu v Bucharest Appeal Court Criminal Division, Romania

On an application for permission to appeal in extradition proceedings, the proposed ground must be reasonably arguable. A decision-maker must engage with material evidence and give reasons sufficient to show the route to the conclusion. Relaxed evidential rules do not permit reliance on anonymous material whose credibility and reliability cannot fairly be tested. Evidence from unidentified sources may therefore be excluded where no effective challenge is possible. Fresh specialty evidence will not justify permission where clear and detailed official material effectively contradicts it.

The applicant challenged a District Judge’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Romania under a European Arrest Warrant alleging bribery. He sought permission to appeal on grounds concerning extraneous political considerations, Articles 6 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and specialty under the Extradition Act 2003.

The application relied on expert evidence about Romania’s political and prosecutorial systems, reports prepared by SC Strategy, psychiatric evidence, and statements from Romanian prisoners. The issues included whether the grounds were reasonably arguable, whether the District Judge had adequately reasoned his conclusions, whether the SC Strategy evidence was admissible, and whether the fresh specialty evidence could affect the decision.

Permission to appeal was granted on grounds two to five, subject to upholding the exclusion of the SC Strategy reports and Lord Carlile QC’s oral evidence. Permission on ground six, concerning specialty, was refused.

1. Threshold and reasons. Under Criminal Procedure Rule 50.17(4)(b), a ground had to be reasonably arguable. It was reasonably arguable that the District Judge had failed adequately to engage with expert evidence concerning political motivation and had not explained the alleged nexus between political and prosecutorial processes in Romania and the applicant’s prosecution.
2. Anonymous material. The relaxed evidential rules recognised in Schtraks v Government of Israel [1964] AC 556 did not make admissible material whose credibility and reliability on key facts could not fairly be tested. The principle stated in R (B and others) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Others [2015] AC 1195 remained applicable: evidence before a court must be capable of inter partes testing. Anonymous evidence might in principle be admitted where sufficient information enabled challenge, but the present sources were unknown to everyone and had not given evidence. Their material was correctly excluded.
3. Article 3. The District Judge had given no reasons for rejecting the significance of the applicant’s diagnosed bipolar disorder, which was not seriously disputed and required monitoring and medication adjustment. The Article 3 ground was therefore reasonably arguable.
4. Specialty. Statements from three Romanian prisoners were effectively contradicted by clear and detailed material from the Romanian authorities. Ground six was not reasonably arguable.
5. Further evidence. Applying Szombathely City Court, Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), the court considered only a limited part of the new evidence and left the remaining issues for the full appeal hearing.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge ordered the applicant’s extradition to Romania.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Permission was refused on all six grounds by Elisabeth Laing J. On renewal, Whipple J refused permission on ground one and stayed consideration of grounds two to five pending [2019] EWHC 890 (Admin). The present court granted permission on grounds two to five and refused permission on ground six.