GABRIEL CIOBANU v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AT THE COURT OF PAVIA, ITALY

In a conviction case under the Extradition Act 2003, the four-month threshold is assessed by reference to the overall sentence imposed for the conduct, including an aggregated sentence. Where the European arrest warrant is incomplete or unclear, properly formulated further information may explain and supplement it. The executing court should read the warrant and further information as a whole and respect the sentencing practice of the requesting state. It should not disaggregate an aggregated sentence or investigate how it was calculated unless a particular concern, such as abuse of process, specialty, or an issue concerning non-extraditable conduct, requires further inquiry.

The appellant appealed under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Italy to serve an aggregated sentence imposed for seven convictions. The appeal was limited to the fifth European arrest warrant, which concerned an immigration offence for which an individual sentence of three months had been imposed. The warrant and further information explained that the offence formed part of an aggregated sentence exceeding five years. The central issue was whether the offence was an extradition offence under sections 10 and 65(3)(c), despite the individual sentence being below four months.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had not erred in concluding that the fifth warrant specified an extradition offence.

2. Under section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question in a conviction case is whether a sentence of at least four months has been imposed in respect of the conduct specified in the warrant. In a multiple-offence case, the court may take the aggregated sentence as the relevant sentence.

3. The warrant and properly formulated further information must be read together. Further information may explain the contents of the warrant and cure an incompleteness or inaccuracy. The court’s task is not to conduct a detailed critique of the requesting state’s law or to question how an aggregated sentence was calculated.

4. The reasoning in Pilecki applies despite the use of separate warrants. There was no principled basis for applying a different rule from that applicable to a single composite warrant. The information showed that the aggregated sentence had replaced and superseded the individual sentences, including the three-month sentence in the fifth warrant.

5. Further inquiry into disaggregation might be justified by particular circumstances, including abuse of process, specialty concerns, or aggregated sentences extending to conduct that was non-extraditable for reasons other than sentence length. No such factor arose here.

6. The appeal test under section 27(3) was not met. The District Judge was entitled, and in the circumstances bound, to rely on the overall aggregated sentence.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The appellant’s extradition proceedings proceeded on seven European arrest warrants.
• District Judge: On 19 February 2021, District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Italy and rejected the challenge to the fifth warrant.