Lingurar v Baia Mare Court House, Romania

An apparently composite sentence in a European Arrest Warrant must be assessed by reading the warrant and any admissible further information as a whole. The court must decide whether it concerns separate sentences for separate offences or one sentence for an index offence increased because of previous offending. The issuing authority’s description is approached with mutual trust and confidence, but it is not determinative. The requested state must adopt a fair and cosmopolitan approach and avoid forcing foreign criminal procedures into domestic categories. Where the warrant sufficiently particularises the single offence forming the basis of the return, a failure to particularise earlier offences used only to aggravate that sentence does not invalidate the warrant.

The appellant challenged District Judge Snow’s order of 16 August 2018 requiring his extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant stated that four months and 330 days of imprisonment remained to be served, while identifying one offence: theft committed on 1 February 2015.

The Romanian judicial authority explained that the additional 330 days resulted from the statutory sentencing regime, taking account of an unexecuted portion of an earlier sentence imposed following convictions for rape and qualified theft. The appellant argued that the warrant concerned separate sentences and failed to provide the particulars required by section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the Framework Decision. The central issue was whether the warrant disclosed one aggravated sentence for the theft or separate sentences for earlier offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant sufficiently particularised the single offence for which the appellant’s return was sought.
2. Under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, read consistently with Article 8 of the Framework Decision, the court must consider the European Arrest Warrant as a whole. Further information from the issuing judicial authority may be taken into account where appropriate. The issuing authority’s description is not conclusive.
3. The requested state must adopt a fair and cosmopolitan approach. It must not adopt an unduly narrow or parochial view or force foreign sentencing procedures into domestic categories.
4. The unusual expression of the sentence did not establish that there were two sentences. The further information explained that the four-month sentence for the 2015 theft was increased by 330 days because of earlier offending. This was different from a composite sentence comprising an index-offence sentence and an activated sentence. The distinction identified in Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law, Romania [2016] 1 WLR 2933 (DC) supported treating the warrant as one for an index offence aggravated by previous offending.
5. It was unnecessary and inappropriate, without expert evidence, to interpret Article 129(2)(b) of the Romanian Criminal Code. On the evidence before the District Judge, sufficient particulars had been provided for the theft. The omission of particulars of the earlier rape and theft offences was immaterial. Further information obtained after permission to appeal was unnecessary and was not admitted in the interests of justice.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal from District Judge Snow’s extradition order was dismissed: [2019] EWHC 74 (Admin).
2. District Judge Snow — On 16 August 2018, ordered extradition to Romania under the European Arrest Warrant.