Maria Simona Pop v Targu-Mures District Court (Romania)

In extradition proceedings, Article 8 private and family life considerations must be balanced against the strong public interest in extradition and in preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven for fugitives. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that those considerations would bar extradition. The extradition court’s function does not extend to reviewing or overturning the requesting state’s sentence, or directing its substitution, although the individual may raise such matters with the requesting authorities. Prison-condition and medical-treatment objections must disclose an arguable human-rights basis before they can resist extradition.

The appellant sought renewed permission to appeal against an extradition order made by DJ Rimmer on 7 December 2020. Sir Ross Cranston had refused permission on the Article 8 ground on 28 May 2021, while staying section 2 and Article 6 arguments pending resolution of an issue of principle in a lead case.

The appellant relied on her marriage, employment in a care home, medical conditions, compensation paid to the Romanian employer, alleged disparity with her husband’s sentence, and concerns about Romanian prison conditions and medical care. The central issue was whether those matters gave rise to an arguable Article 8 basis for resisting extradition.

1. Renewed permission refused. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would succeed on Article 8 grounds or that Article 8 considerations would bar extradition.
2. The applicable approach recognises the strong public interest in extradition, including the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven for persons who evade accountability by leaving the requesting state. That interest must be balanced against factors, including human-rights impacts, capable of weighing against extradition. On the facts, the public interest decisively outweighed the countervailing considerations.
3. The seriousness and relative recency of the offences, the significant custodial term, and the appellant’s having come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive were material considerations. The appellant’s employment and contribution during the pandemic, her marriage, medical evidence, payment of compensation, and the asserted disparity with her husband’s sentence did not create a realistic prospect of success.
4. The extradition court’s function does not include deciding whether the Romanian sentence was excessive, overturning it, or directing the Romanian authorities to substitute a suspended sentence. Matters concerning retrial, sentence substitution, compensation, and comparison with the husband’s position remained matters for the Romanian authorities under Romanian law.
5. The prison-condition and medical-treatment objections had already been considered by the District Judge, who had relied on a prison assurance addressing medical assessment, treatment and care. The renewed points disclosed no arguable basis for resisting extradition.
6. The application to rely on updated medical evidence was formally refused because it was not capable of being decisive. The case remained stayed on the unresolved section 2 and Article 6 grounds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Fordham refused renewed permission to appeal on Article 8 grounds.
• Administrative Court: DJ Rimmer ordered extradition on 7 December 2020 after an oral hearing on 13 October 2020.
• Administrative Court: Sir Ross Cranston refused permission to appeal on the Article 8 ground on 28 May 2021 and stayed the section 2 and Article 6 arguments pending resolution of an issue of principle.