FLORIN SANDU v MOINESTI DISTRICT COURT (ROMANIA)

Where a person is sought pursuant to a conviction warrant, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must assess the risk of non-surrender in the circumstances of the individual case. Strong family ties, employment, an established life in the United Kingdom and the wish to support dependent family members may provide substantial countervailing incentives to surrender. Stringent conditions may sufficiently mitigate any remaining risk. Bail conditions must also be proportionate. Requiring third parties to surrender passports or identity documents is unjustified where those persons are not accused of any offence and the documents add no necessary protection against absconding.

Florin Sandu applied for bail under Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 22 (1A). He was sought by the Romanian authorities under two European Arrest Warrants to serve custodial sentences for manslaughter and making off from the scene of an accident, and for theft. The extradition hearing was listed for 29 March 2022.

Mr Sandu had lived and worked openly in the United Kingdom since 2019. His partner, who had settled status, had recently given birth to their son and was suffering from depression. The application raised whether the proposed security and reporting, residence, curfew, electronic monitoring and document-surrender conditions sufficiently mitigated the risk of non-surrender, and whether the proposed surrender of family members’ identity documents was proportionate.

1. Application granted. Bail was granted under section 22 (1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 on stringent conditions.
2. Because the warrants concerned convictions, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The seriousness of the offences and the substantial sentences weighed against release. The guarantee of a retrial under the first warrant was also relevant.
3. The principal countervailing factors were the recent birth of Mr Sandu’s son and his partner’s condition. Additional weight was given to his gainful employment, tax payments, open residence in the United Kingdom since 2019, family ties and desire to provide for his family. These matters created a strong incentive to surrender at the extradition hearing.
4. The proposed conditions, including security, residence, electronically monitored curfew, surrender of travel documents, a charged telephone and daily reporting, were sufficiently stringent to mitigate the risk of failure to surrender.
5. It was not proportionate to require Mr Sandu’s brothers and sister-in-law to surrender their passports and identity documents. They were not accused of any offence, and their documents were unnecessary to manage the applicant’s risk. The applicant’s own passport and Romanian identity document on which he could travel were required to be surrendered. The reporting condition also required identification of the relevant police station.

Not stated in the judgment.