Mariana Corduta Zamfir v Romanian Judicial Authority

In an extradition case, a specific assurance from the competent national authority that a minimum prison living space would be provided was not undermined by a later letter identifying the authority responsible for compliance. General concerns about prison conditions, including pandemic arrangements, did not create an arguable Article 3 ground without a specific basis to doubt implementation or monitoring of the assurance. Under Article 8, the court must assess whether there is a realistic prospect that the proportionality balance would be held unlawful on appeal. Strong public interest in enforcing a sentence for serious fraud and organised criminality outweighed the appellant’s personal, medical, relational and rehabilitative circumstances.

Mariana Corduta Zamfir faced extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant relating to fraud, forged identity documents and participation in an organised criminal group. A District Judge ordered extradition on 9 October 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Saini J on 9 February 2021.

The appellant renewed her application on Article 8 grounds and sought to revive an Article 3 prison-conditions ground. She also sought permission to rely on fresh evidence, including a Romanian Ministry letter and material concerning prison conditions. The central issues were whether the fresh material undermined Romania’s specific prison-space assurance and whether the Article 8 balance disclosed a reasonably arguable appeal.

1. Article 3. The assurance dated 17 August 2020, given by the National Administration of Penitentiaries, specifically confirmed that at least 3m² of individual space, including the bed and furniture but excluding the lavatory, would be safeguarded throughout sentence enforcement. The later Ministry letter merely explained that such assurances came from the National Administration and that prison administrations were obliged to comply. It created no inconsistency or evidential lacuna. The assurance was therefore an appropriate and sufficient basis for the Article 3 assessment (paras [3]–[5]).
2. The Scottish decision in Iliev [2021] HCJAC 26 did not assist the appellant. That court had considered expert concerns about implementation and monitoring but found no specific basis to doubt the relevant assurance. The same reasoning applied here. The revived Article 3 ground was hopeless, and permission to adduce the Ministry letter as fresh evidence was refused (paras [6]–[8]).
3. Article 8. The District Judge had adopted an unimpeachable method and approach. The renewed application therefore required a realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would find the outcome of the balancing exercise wrong, rather than merely invite disagreement with the weight assigned to individual factors (para [9]).
4. The court considered the appellant’s non-fugitivity, cooperation, delay, health, work history, relationship and the impact of extradition. Those matters were decisively outweighed by the public interest in enforcing a sentence for substantial fraud and organised criminality, particularly where a significant custodial term remained. Extradition was compatible with the Article 8 rights of both the appellant and her partner. Permission to appeal and permission to rely on the Article 8 fresh evidence were refused (paras [10]–[13]).

1. District Judge. District Judge Griffiths ordered the appellant’s extradition on 9 October 2020.
2. High Court. Saini J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 9 February 2021.
3. High Court (Administrative Court). The renewed application was refused. The court also refused permission to rely on the proposed fresh evidence.