Lacatus v Romanian Judicial Authority & Anor (Rev 1)

In extradition proceedings, Article 8 proportionality requires a balance between the interference with the requested person's private and family life and the public interest in giving effect to extradition arrangements. Delay between the offending and the foreign proceedings may reduce that public interest, but it does not necessarily do so to a decisive extent. The seriousness of the offences, the sentences imposed and the requested person's fugitive status may sustain a strong public interest in extradition. The court will not interfere with a first-instance proportionality assessment unless an arguable error is shown.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Ikram on 13 December 2019. Two European Arrest Warrants concerned Romanian convictions for driving without a licence and theft. The consolidated sentence was two years and two months' imprisonment.

The appellant had lived in the United Kingdom since 2015, had a partner, family connections and regular employment. He argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights and those of his family and partner. He also relied on the delay between the offences and the Romanian proceedings. The central issue was whether the District Judge had arguably erred in concluding that extradition was proportionate.

1. Application refused. The appellant failed to establish any reasonably arguable error in the District Judge's conclusion that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights engaged.
2. The Article 8 assessment properly involved balancing the disruption and financial and emotional effects of extradition against the public interest in giving effect to extradition arrangements. The balance-sheet approach referred to in Celinski was the approach used by the District Judge.
3. Delay between the commission of offences and the foreign proceedings may support an inference that the public interest in extradition has diminished. That inference was accepted in principle, but the delay here did not materially weaken the public interest. The Romanian courts had treated the offences as significant, as shown by the custodial sentences.
4. The appellant's fugitive status was a material factor in the proportionality assessment. The court found no arguable basis for going behind the District Judge's conclusion that he had left Romania to avoid future proceedings.
5. The driving offences remained extradition offences within the meaning of section 65 of the Extradition Act 2003, notwithstanding that imprisonment would not have been available for equivalent offences if committed in the United Kingdom.
6. Taking the relevant matters together, the public interest in extradition remained strong. The passage of time did not provide a reasonable basis for arguing that extradition would be disproportionate.

• District Judge — extradition order made on 13 December 2019.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — renewed application for permission to appeal refused; no reasonably arguable error was shown.