Mihu v Romanian Judicial Authority

At the permission stage, an Article 8 extradition appeal must be reasonably arguable before permission can be granted. The court must balance the individual and family impact of extradition against the strong public interest in extradition and in respecting the sentencing decisions of another country. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and repetition of the offending, the sentence to be served, delay, family and private life, hardship, and whether the person is a fugitive. A person need not be a fugitive for there to remain a public interest in preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven from an overseas sentence. Where the positive personal circumstances cannot reasonably arguably outweigh the public interest, permission should be refused.

The appellant faced extradition to Romania under a conviction European arrest warrant relating to repeated driving offences and a custodial sentence of one year and 10 months. The District Judge ordered extradition on 8 January 2020 after considering whether extradition would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant sought permission to appeal, relying on his residence, employment, relationship, support for his mother, lack of UK convictions, non-fugitive status, the age and relative seriousness of the offences, and evidence that only seven months remained to be served. The central issue was whether an Article 8 challenge to the extradition decision was reasonably arguable.

1. Permission threshold. The court had to assess, on everything read and heard, whether the proposed Article 8 appeal was reasonably arguable. There was no realistic prospect of success on a substantive appeal.
2. Public interest and proportionality. Article 8 permitted distinctions based on the seriousness of offending. The offences were repeated, involved driving while unlicensed or using another vehicle’s licence plate, breached a suspended sentence, and had resulted in a custodial sentence. The District Judge’s descriptions of the offending as moderately or reasonably serious were beyond reasonable argument.
3. There was a strong public interest in extradition and in mutual respect for the decisions of foreign courts, including decisions imposing or activating sentences and dismissing appeals. Although the appellant was not a fugitive, his return to the United Kingdom after learning that his Romanian sentence appeal had failed meant that the United Kingdom should not become a safe haven from a sentence the person wished to avoid.
4. There had been no relevant delay. The extradition proceedings were pursued promptly, and the period spent in the United Kingdom did not materially reduce the public interest or materially strengthen the appellant’s private or family life case.
5. The court took account of the appellant’s lack of UK convictions, employment as a care worker during the pandemic, support for his mother, and the hardship extradition would cause. Even assuming that only seven months remained to be served, those matters could not reasonably arguably outweigh the public interest in extradition. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal from the District Judge’s extradition order was refused.
• District Judge: Extradition was ordered on 8 January 2020 after consideration of the appellant’s Article 8 rights.
• Earlier High Court consideration: Johnson J had concluded that the extradition outcome was obviously correct.