Catalin-Constantin Patrunjel v Judecatoria Sighetu Marmatiei (Romania)

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in an extradition case, the court held that a requested person may be arguably mischaracterised as a fugitive, yet the underlying conduct and knowledge may remain relevant to the Article 8 proportionality assessment. The court must evaluate all circumstances in the factual matrix, including knowledge of pending proceedings, failure to return when pursued by the requesting state, the seriousness of the offence, delay, family circumstances and the consequences of extradition. Removing a finding of fugitivity does not require the remaining factors to be disregarded. Permission requires a reasonably arguable basis for both the proposed legal premise and the conclusion that the lower court’s outcome was wrong. Permission was refused where there was no realistic prospect that extradition would be found disproportionate.

The appellant faced extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning a 15-month custodial sentence. District Judge Robinson ordered extradition in a judgment dated 28 October 2020 and handed down on 3 November 2020. Thornton J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 10 March 2021.

The appellant renewed his application, challenging the District Judge’s findings that he had acted fugitively and arguing that, without those findings, the Article 8 balance would favour him and his disabled partner. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal was reasonably arguable both as to the legal characterisation of his conduct and as to the outcome of the proportionality assessment.

1. Permission refused. The appellant established an arguable basis for contending that fugitivity was a legally inapt characterisation of his conduct. On the District Judge’s findings, there had been no prohibition on leaving Romania, no established obligation to provide an address, and no finding that the appellant knew of the suspended sentence or probation conditions.
2. That premise did not establish an arguable basis for overturning the outcome. Fugitivity has an exclusionary role under section 14, but a more nuanced role in the passage-of-time and Article 8 assessment. Even if the appellant was not a fugitive, his knowledge that he faced prosecution, conviction and sentence, his failure to notify a relocation, his awareness that Romanian police wanted him to return, and his rejected explanation for not returning remained relevant to the overall evaluative exercise.
3. The proportionality assessment required all relevant circumstances to be weighed. These included the delay, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the sentence and time remaining, the appellant’s conduct, the relationship with his partner, her disability and dependency, and the practical and emotional consequences of extradition.
4. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive court, even reconsidering the balance afresh without treating the appellant as a fugitive, would conclude that extradition was wrong or disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
• District Judge Robinson: Extradition was ordered for reasons given in a judgment dated 28 October 2020 and handed down on 3 November 2020.
• High Court: Thornton J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 10 March 2021.