Saptelei v Hunedoara Law Court of Romania (Rev 1)

In a conviction-based European arrest warrant case, the statutory proportionality bar in section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to accusation or prosecution cases, not to a person already convicted and sentenced. A substantial custodial sentence imposed by the requesting state ordinarily answers the questions of seriousness and likely penalty. The extradition court should not substitute its view of the appropriate sentence or sentencing policy. Any unfairness arising from the statutory distinction may be addressed through the conventional Article 8 proportionality assessment, but no modified assessment is required where the relevant matters are already considered within that exercise. Guidance intended to identify trivial offences does not apply where the requesting state has imposed a significant prison sentence.

Romania sought the appellant’s extradition under a European arrest warrant to enforce a combined sentence of one year and five months’ imprisonment for two convictions for driving without a licence. He had been convicted and sentenced in his absence, but retained an unfettered right to a retrial in Romania.

The district judge ordered extradition after conducting an Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise. The appellant argued that, because he could obtain a retrial, the court should modify its approach to proportionality and effectively apply the statutory safeguards in section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. He also relied on guidance concerning minor road-traffic offences and possible effects on his EU Settlement Scheme position. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s order for extradition was upheld.
2. Section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 establishes a proportionality bar for accusation or prosecution warrants. It is not applicable to a conviction warrant where the requested person has already been convicted and sentenced. The statutory distinction did not create substantive unfairness requiring a modified Article 8 analysis in this case.
3. The sentence imposed by the Romanian court conclusively demonstrated that the conduct was regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment. It also made an assessment of the likely penalty under section 21A artificial. Extradition was necessary to enable the sentence to be served.
4. The Criminal Practice Direction guidance on minor road-traffic and driving offences identifies a floor of cases at the very bottom end of seriousness. It does not fetter the statutory assessment, and had no application where a substantial custodial sentence had been imposed.
5. The Article 8 balancing exercise remained available to address matters relied on by the appellant, including the seriousness of the offending and the consequences of delay. The court should respect the requesting state’s sentencing regime and should rarely consider whether a different sentence would have been imposed in England and Wales.
6. There was no need to adjust the Article 8 assessment. The district judge had considered the relevant matters and had reached an entirely supportable conclusion. The arguments based on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the EU Future Relationship Act 2020 and the EU Settlement Scheme did not alter the result.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The district judge ordered extradition on 20 March 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, then granted by Fordham J at an oral hearing: [2020] EWHC 2341 (Admin).
• Divisional Court: The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order upheld.