Adamescu v Bucharest Appeal Court Criminal Division, Romania

Under the Extradition Act 2003, an appeal is concerned with whether the extradition judge’s decision was wrong, not with a rehearing. For section 13(a), the court examines the requesting authority’s purpose and the process leading to the warrant. For section 13(b), the requested person must show both a real possibility of prejudice and the required causal link. An Article 6 challenge requires a real risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial. Although the ordinary presumption of Article 3 compliance had been rebutted in relation to Romanian prison conditions, reliable assurances covering the whole period of detention could remove the risk. Fresh evidence must be decisive. The appeal was dismissed because the district judge’s conclusions remained sound and the fresh evidence did not satisfy the statutory threshold.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Zani on 13 April 2018 requiring his extradition to Romania under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He alleged that the prosecution was politically motivated, engaging the extraneous-considerations bar under section 13. He also argued that extradition would expose him to a real risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to treatment contrary to Article 3 because of Romanian prison conditions and inadequate healthcare.

The appeal under sections 26 and 27 raised both alleged errors in the district judge’s reasoning and substantial fresh evidence concerning political interference, judicial independence, the appellant’s mental health and prison conditions. The central issues were whether the district judge’s decisions were wrong and whether the fresh evidence was decisive.

The appeal was dismissed. None of the district judge’s challenged decisions was wrong, and the proposed fresh evidence was not decisive.

1. Appellate approach. Under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal was not a rehearing or a judicial-review-style search for omissions. The court respected factual findings but could stand back and conclude that the overall evaluation was wrong if relevant factors should have been weighed so differently as to affect the result. Fresh evidence had to satisfy the statutory conditions and be decisive: Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) and Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin).
2. Political motivation. The correct section 13(a) approach required consideration of the whole process leading to the European arrest warrant. The district judge was nevertheless entitled to conclude that the prosecution was not politically motivated. The timing of the arbitration proceedings was of limited significance, particularly because the former Prime Minister had left office before proceedings against the appellant began. Errors concerning chronology and the Commission’s report did not undermine the overall conclusion.
3. Section 13(b) and Article 6. Romania had experienced corruption and threats to judicial independence, but the evidence also showed substantial reform and continuing judicial support for the rule of law. There was no sufficient evidence of a general impossibility of a fair trial, nor a pilot judgment or comparable international consensus rebutting the presumption of Convention compliance in relation to Article 6. The district judge was entitled to rely on the safeguards available at trial and on the appellant’s rights to challenge evidence and appeal.
4. Article 3. Rezmiveş and others v Romania (Applications nos. 61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 and 68191/13) and Grecu v Cornetu Court, Romania [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin) established that the general presumption of Article 3 compliance had been rebutted in relation to Romanian detention conditions. The court therefore examined whether reliable assurances covered the whole prospective detention, including initial police custody, pre-trial detention, trial and any imprisonment after conviction. The assurances concerning personal space, accommodation and healthcare were sufficient. The appellant’s newly diagnosed autism spectrum disorder did not alter that conclusion.
5. Fresh evidence and final order. The fresh evidence was not available at the original hearing, but none of it would have required a different decision. The statement of Dr Hanning was inadmissible anonymous hearsay. The remaining evidence failed the decisive-evidence criterion. The appeal therefore failed and was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — On 20 October 2020, the court dismissed the appeal against the extradition order. The court held that none of the district judge’s decisions was wrong and declined to admit the fresh evidence.
• District Judge Zani — On 13 April 2018, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.