DOREL TIGANESCU v THE COUNTY COURT OF SUCEAVA, ROMANIA

For the purposes of Extradition Act 2003, a person convicted in absence may be treated as having deliberately absented himself where, knowing that criminal proceedings have begun, he leaves the jurisdiction and deliberately puts himself beyond the authorities’ reach, preventing notification of the trial. Knowledge of the precise trial date is unnecessary. A waiver of the right to attend, or to be informed that the trial may proceed in absence, may be tacit, provided it is unequivocal. Article 4a of the 2002 Framework Decision provides an optional ground for refusing execution of an EAW. The appeal was dismissed because the District Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusion were open to him.

The appellant challenged an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence imposed after a trial in his absence. The District Judge found that he knew criminal proceedings had begun, deliberately left Romania to avoid them, and thereby prevented himself from learning the trial date. Summonses were subsequently served on family members at his Romanian address in accordance with domestic law, and he was represented by a duty solicitor.

The appeal under sections 20 and 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 concerned whether those findings established deliberate absence, despite the appellant’s lack of direct knowledge of the trial date and the absence of conditions on his release.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant knew criminal proceedings had begun after his detention and questioning, deliberately left Romania to avoid the process, and placed himself beyond the authorities’ reach.
2. Under s.20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, deliberate absence does not require proof that the requested person knew the precise date or place of trial. It is sufficient that his own conduct knowingly disabled effective notification and attendance. The right to attend trial may be waived expressly or tacitly, provided the waiver is unequivocal.
3. Service of summonses on the appellant’s mother and sister at his home address complied with Romanian domestic law. The arrangements were Convention-compliant. The District Judge was entitled to reject the evidence that the appellant had not been informed.
4. The court followed Cretu and Zagrean. Article 4a of the 2002 Framework Decision creates an optional, not mandatory, ground for refusing execution of an EAW where a person was tried in absence.
5. The appellant’s release without conditions did not prevent a finding of deliberate avoidance. The reference to serious bodily harm in further information did not show that the charge had been amended from qualified murder.

The District Judge made no error of law or fact. The sole ground of appeal failed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Goozée ordered extradition on 23 February 2020 under s.21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Divisional Court): The appeal under s.26 was dismissed. The court upheld the finding that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from his trial.