Mihaela Vasilica Bucica v The Dolj Court Criminal Department, Romania

In an extradition appeal, particulars in a European Arrest Warrant may be read together with Further Information supplied by the requesting judicial authority. The question is whether, read as a whole, the materials identify the alleged conduct and its connection with the offences with sufficient clarity and particularity.

For an absence-at-trial challenge, the relevant question is whether the conviction followed proceedings falling within section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 4a of the Framework Decision. Representation by an appointed lawyer may satisfy the relevant safeguard.

Under Article 8, delay may reduce the weight of the public interest in extradition and increase the interference with private and family life. Those effects must be balanced against the seriousness of the offending, the sentence and the individual circumstances. Extradition remains proportionate where the public interest decisively outweighs the Article 8 factors.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Branston on 1 December 2020 directing her extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned fourteen offences arising from four Romanian criminal proceedings and a merged sentence.

Permission to appeal had been refused on paper by Lane J and was renewed orally before the Administrative Court. The appellant argued that the particulars of six swindling offences were deficient, that one sentence followed a trial in her absence without an assured right of retrial, and that extradition would breach Article 8 by reason of her family and private life in the United Kingdom and the delay.

The central issues were whether the warrant and Further Information sufficiently particularised the offences, whether section 20 safeguards were engaged, and whether extradition was proportionate under Article 8.

1. Permission refused. None of the three grounds of appeal was reasonably arguable.

2. On particulars, the warrant had to be read with the Further Information. The materials described the criminal group, the fraudulent modus operandi and the appellant’s alleged conduct. The three examples relied upon by the appellant identified, with sufficient clarity and particularity, the conduct said to constitute the offences. The apparent difference between sixteen incidents and six swindling offences was also explained: the incidents related to frauds against six victims. The first ground was therefore devoid of substance. The court applied the approach reflected in Alexander [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin).

3. On trial in absence, the relevant hearing on 26 November 2014 was an appellate hearing, not a trial at which the conviction was imposed. In any event, the appellant had appointed a chosen defender who represented her. That was sufficient for the purpose identified in Cretu [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin). There was no realistic prospect of establishing a breach of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 or Article 4a of the Framework Decision.

4. For Article 8, delay could diminish the public interest in extradition while increasing the impact on private and family life. The court considered those effects together with the appellant’s established life in the United Kingdom, her family relationships and the absence of a finding that she was a fugitive. Against them stood serious, organised and sophisticated offending, a custodial sentence of six years seven months and twenty days, the absence of young children or direct dependants, and the continuing public interest in surrender. There was no realistic prospect that extradition would be disproportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused orally on 20 May 2021.
• District Judge Branston: On 1 December 2020, after an oral hearing on 30 October 2020, the appellant’s extradition was ordered.
• Lane J: Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 22 April 2021.