VASILE STANCIU v PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Permission to appeal in an extradition case should be granted only where the proposed ground has a realistic prospect of success or is reasonably arguable. Fresh evidence may properly be left for the substantive appeal where its admissibility, relevance and weight are closely interrelated.

Particulars need not eliminate every conceivable uncertainty. They are sufficient where they enable the requested person to understand the nature and extent of the allegations and to consider any statutory bars. The residual abuse-of-process jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for advancing a statutory extradition bar directly. A new fact will not establish abuse without a viable and credible case that the fact is material and causes prejudice.

The appellant challenged the extradition order made by the Home Secretary after District Judge Snow, following a two-day hearing, sent the case to the Home Secretary on 27 May 2021. He sought permission to appeal on four grounds and permission to adduce the 2021 CPT Report and the Armenian Government’s response.

The respondent sought permission to adduce five rounds of further information, including alleged assurances. The issues concerned Article 3 prison conditions, oppression or injustice arising from delay and loss of an amnesty benefit, the adequacy of particulars under the Extradition Act 2003, and alleged abuse of process under the principles in Zakrzewski.

1. Article 3 and fresh evidence. Permission to appeal was granted on the prison-conditions ground because the post-judgment 2021 CPT material, the reasoning in Government of Armenia v Roca, and multiple rounds of further information raised issues that required assessment at a substantive appeal. Admissibility, relevance and weight were sufficiently interrelated that the applications should be deferred to that court. Permission was not granted on the challenge to the Judge’s treatment of Mr Gasparyan’s evidence. The approach, informed by Brazuks, remained unassailable.
2. Oppression or injustice. Permission was refused. The Judge’s evaluative conclusion under section 82 of the Extradition Act 2003 was beyond reasonable argument. The seven factors identified by the Judge were relevant and convincing. Loss of a possible sentence reduction under the Armenian Amnesty Law did not make extradition unjust or oppressive. The issue had to be assessed in the context of all four offences, and could not justify discharging the appellant from trial altogether.
3. Particulars. Permission was refused on the ground under section 78 read with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The particulars sufficiently identified the nature and extent of the allegations. The different monetary figures related to two distinct attempted offences and were capable of reconciliation. There was no relevant ambiguity or impairment of specialty protection.
4. Abuse of process. Permission was refused. The residual jurisdiction described in Zakrzewski could not operate as a backdoor substitute for a statutory forum bar under section 83A. Additional information did not itself create abuse merely because a forum argument might previously have been raised. The appellant had to demonstrate a viable and credible forum case and material prejudice; neither was shown.

• District Judge. District Judge Snow sent the extradition case to the Home Secretary by judgment dated 27 May 2021.
• Home Secretary. The Home Secretary ordered extradition on 12 July 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court). Permission to appeal was granted on the Article 3 prison-conditions ground only. Permission on the remaining grounds was refused, and the fresh-evidence applications were deferred to the substantive appeal.