Alba Iulia Court of Law, Romania v Ferencz Ioan Szabo

On an extradition appeal, the High Court may admit a prison assurance first offered on appeal where it would have changed the district judge’s decision and admission is in the interests of justice. The court must consider the reasons for lateness, whether the requesting authority could reasonably have acted earlier, any tactical delay or bad faith, and whether a relevant deadline was missed.

Where an Article 3 challenge is raised without fair particularisation, it may be unfair to treat the extradition hearing as the final deadline for a detailed assurance. The district judge may adjourn to allow a final opportunity for an adequate assurance or, if unwilling to adjourn, may need to request further information under Article 613(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. These conclusions were case-specific.

The Alba Iulia Court of Law appealed under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the discharge of Ferencz Ioan Szabo by a district judge. The discharge followed a finding that extradition would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights during an initial 21-day period at Rahova Prison.

The requesting authority sought to admit two further prison assurances on appeal. One was general to Rahova and had been considered in Marinescu; the other was specific to Mr Szabo. The issues were whether the assurances should be admitted, whether the district judge had wrongly refused related material from Gheorghe, and whether an Aranyosi request under Article 613(2) was mandatory before discharge.

1. Appeal allowed. The March 2022 and April 2022 Assurances were admitted. The discharge order was quashed and the case was remitted to the district judge to proceed as required on the basis that the relevant question had been decided differently.
2. The December 2021 Assurance was inadequate for the initial 21-day period at Rahova. It guaranteed three square metres of personal space and compliance with statutory rights, but did not adequately address time outside the cell or out-of-cell activities. The assurance was materially the same as that considered in Gheorghe.
3. Applying the principles summarised in Hysa, the assurances were admissible even though first offered on appeal. They were issues for section 29(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, rather than fresh evidence. They would have led the district judge to find no material Article 3 risk at Rahova. There was no tactical conduct or bad faith, no court-imposed deadline had been missed, and the delays were not material in the circumstances.
4. The failure to particularise the Article 3 challenge meant that the requesting authority could not reasonably be expected to anticipate the precise Rahova complaint. The district judge should have adjourned to permit a final assurance addressing that issue. The admission of the assurances caused no relevant prejudice because the respondent could raise any subsequent Article 8 complaint at the resumed extradition hearing.
5. The refusal to admit the Gheorghe material was within the district judge’s case-management discretion. It was produced during the hearing, could not simply be read across as generally applicable, and was more than two years old without a current assurance that the conditions continued.
6. The district judge was not automatically obliged to make an Aranyosi request. On these facts, if he would not adjourn, fairness to the requesting authority required a request for further information under Article 613(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This did not establish a general rule requiring endless requests contrary to Article 615.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — Ferencz Ioan Szabo was discharged under section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 after an Article 3 finding concerning Rahova Prison.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — Appeal allowed under section 29 of the Extradition Act 2003; the discharge was quashed and the case remitted.