Petricia-Luis Adam v Romania

In an extradition appeal concerning Article 8 ECHR, fugitivity is a significant adverse consideration but does not operate as an automatic bar to reliance on private and family life. If the requested person is not legally a fugitive, the circumstances of arrival and residence in the United Kingdom remain relevant to proportionality. The court may consider a new point on renewal where the interests of justice require it, particularly when it is linked to the pleaded issue and can be answered by the respondent. Permission to appeal nevertheless requires a reasonably arguable case. Permission should be refused where correcting factual findings, including fugitivity and the duration of United Kingdom residence, could not realistically alter the proportionality outcome.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Romania to serve an 18-month custodial sentence arising from convictions for driving without a licence. A District Judge ordered extradition on 7 June 2022, finding it compatible with Article 8 ECHR. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Collins Rice J, but the appellant renewed the application.

The appellant challenged the finding that he and his wife first entered the United Kingdom after 2 November 2020, and argued that this affected the assessment of fugitivity and the duration of their private and family life. At the oral renewal hearing, he also argued that the notification condition attached to an earlier suspended sentence had expired before November 2020. The central issue was whether those matters created a reasonably arguable basis for overturning the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

1. New point. The court accepted that the challenge to the finding about first entry was reasonably arguable. Although the new argument concerning expiry of the notification condition should have been raised earlier, it was sufficiently linked to the existing issue and could be considered in the interests of justice.
2. Fugitivity and Article 8. In a section 14 argument, fugitivity operates as an on/off issue. In an Article 8 assessment it is more nuanced. Fugitivity is a key adverse consideration, engages the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven, and affects the assessment of delay and the impact of extradition. If the person is not legally a fugitive, the circumstances in which they came to and remained in the United Kingdom may still affect the proportionality balance.
3. Application. The court assumed, in the appellant’s favour, that he was not legally a fugitive and that his private and family life in the United Kingdom extended from January 2018. Those matters increased the weight of the interference and reduced the force of some considerations relied on below. They did not, however, create a realistic prospect of a different result. The 18-month sentence and other public-interest considerations in favour of extradition decisively outweighed the factors relied on under Article 8.
4. Disposition. The court refused permission to appeal and refused permission to adduce the putative fresh evidence. The corrected factual findings could not underpin a successful appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court refused permission to appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order and refused permission to adduce putative fresh evidence.
• District Judge: Extradition was ordered on 7 June 2022 after an oral hearing on 20 May 2022.
• High Court: Collins Rice J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 21 September 2022.