ADINA-GABRIELA PRISACARIU v JUDECATORIA SUCEAVA, ROMANIA

In extradition proceedings, the court must conduct a fresh Article 8 proportionality assessment where material circumstances have changed. The public interest in extradition remains weighty, but the welfare of a child is a primary consideration. Exceptionally, extradition may be disproportionate where the requested person is the child’s primary or sole carer, separation would cause serious and lasting harm, and there is no clear care plan. The seriousness of offending must be assessed in context, including the nature of the contraband, the harm caused, culpability and the sentence. A second extradition warrant is not necessarily an abuse merely because the first warrant was discharged, particularly where the second warrant includes further offending and the requesting authority later supplies the required prison assurance.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Branston at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2020 ordering her extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of five years and two months for cigarette smuggling, participation in a criminal organisation and driving offences. Her first extradition warrant had been discharged under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 because Romania had not provided an adequate prison-conditions assurance.

A second warrant was later issued after further offending had been included and a satisfactory assurance was provided. The appellant relied on abuse of process and Article 8 of the ECHR, relying particularly on the effect of extradition on her young daughter. By the time of the appeal, the child’s father was no longer involved in her care and no clear alternative care arrangement existed. The central questions were whether the second warrant was abusive and whether extradition remained proportionate after considering the updated evidence.

1. Abuse of process. The appeal on this ground failed. Applying the broad, merits-based approach identified in Jasvins v General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia [2020] EWHC 602 (Admin), the issue required consideration of the public and private interests on the particular facts. The second warrant was not itself abusive. Romania was presumed to have acted in good faith, the second warrant included the driving offences and a longer sentence, and the required prison assurance was subsequently provided. The circumstances were materially different from Jasvins.
2. The district judge’s original Article 8 balancing exercise was free from error. However, the parties agreed that the appellate court had to revisit it because the evidence had materially changed.
3. The public interest in extradition, mutual confidence between judicial authorities, respect for the requesting state’s sentencing regime and the seriousness and length of the sentence remained powerful factors. The appellant’s Article 8 arguments could ordinarily be considered by the requesting state after surrender.
4. Against extradition, the appellant had become the primary and, at present, sole carer of her daughter. Extradition would cause separation for approximately three and a half years or more. The child would probably enter local authority care in England for a substantial period, with no clear agreement as to later care in Romania. The resulting emotional harm was likely to be serious and lasting.
5. The seriousness of the offending did not automatically determine the proportionality assessment. The court considered the organised cigarette smuggling and dangerous driving serious, but distinguished them from deliberate serious violence or the importation of prohibited drugs. The delays and stress of the proceedings also weighed, though to a lesser extent.
6. In the exceptional circumstances, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and, principally, her daughter. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal allowed against the order of District Judge Branston dated 15 October 2020. The appellant was discharged under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Branston ordered extradition on 15 October 2020.
• Earlier proceedings: District Judge Gary Lucie discharged the appellant under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 on 15 December 2017 because of the absence of an adequate Article 3 prison assurance. Permission to appeal against the later decision was initially refused by Steyn J but granted by Murray J on 18 March 2021.