Sirbu v Sibiu Court of Law, Romania

An European Arrest Warrant is not necessarily invalid because every required detail is absent from its face. Supplementary information may cure an omission where the original warrant is not wholly deficient, having regard to the ability to request information and the mutual-cooperation principles of the surrender system.

For an offence to be extradition-qualifying, the conduct must have occurred in the requesting territory, would constitute a criminal offence in the United Kingdom, and must have attracted the statutory minimum sentence. A sentence calculated by consolidating outstanding sentences does not necessarily involve double jeopardy where credit has been given for time already served.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge McGarva at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 9 April 2019. Romania sought his surrender under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning an attempted-murder conviction and a composite sentence incorporating earlier convictions.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the warrant satisfied sections 2 and 10 of the Extradition Act 2003; whether one public-order offence was an extradition offence; and whether surrender would require the appellant to serve part of a sentence already served, contrary to double-jeopardy or speciality principles.

1. Section 2. The warrant sufficiently particularised the conviction sentence and the operation of the Romanian provisions concerning sentence consolidation and revoked parole. Section 2 does not require every item of information to appear on the warrant itself. Subsequent information may suffice where the original warrant is not wholly deficient: Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office Marseille District, Court of First Instance, France [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin), at paragraph 75. The section 2 ground therefore failed.
2. Section 10. The public-order conduct described in the warrant would have amounted, at least more naturally, to an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, although it was also capable of constituting an offence under section 4A. The conduct therefore met the definition of an extradition offence in section 65(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. This ground failed.
3. Sentence already served. Article 43(2) of the Romanian Criminal Code operates where the earlier sentence has not been served or deemed served and provides for consolidation of outstanding punishments. It is not a provision treating the earlier conviction merely as an aggravating factor. Article 43(5), which concerns increased punishment for a later offence after the earlier sentence has been served, had not been shown to apply.
4. The calculation initially included an element referable to the earlier conviction, but credit was then given for the precise period served for that conviction. The final sentence sought from the appellant therefore contained no time already served. The double-jeopardy and speciality issues consequently did not arise as live barriers to surrender. Had they arisen, the observations concerning Romanian law in Enasoaie v Bacau Court, Romania [2021] EWHC 69 (Admin), at paragraphs 64–71, would have led to the conclusion that section 17 posed no bar.
5. The appeal failed and was dismissed. The extradition order remained valid.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — appeal against the extradition order dismissed; the order remained valid: [2021] EWHC 212 (Admin).
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — District Judge McGarva made the extradition order on 9 April 2019 and rejected the appellant’s challenges under sections 2 and 10 of the Extradition Act 2003 and article 3 of the Convention.