Suceava District Court, Romania v Marian Gurau

In a Part 1 extradition case, the requested person bears the burden of proving that speciality is not protected by practical and effective arrangements. There is a strong presumption that a requesting European state will comply with its international obligations. Only compelling evidence rebuts that presumption.

An ongoing prosecution for an offence not covered by the European Arrest Warrant, an unexplained failure to issue a further warrant, and the absence of evidence of previous breaches do not, without more, establish a likely breach. A respondent has no cross-appeal against adverse rulings which did not result in discharge under the Extradition Act 2003. Those matters may be reconsidered on remittal and later appeal.

The Suceava District Court sought the respondent’s extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to serve a Romanian sentence. A District Judge discharged him, finding that speciality barred extradition because Romanian proceedings for a further tax-evasion offence created compelling evidence of a likely breach.

With leave, the requesting authority appealed. The respondent sought to raise abuse of process and human-rights objections concerning articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether the speciality bar applied and whether this court had jurisdiction to hear a respondent’s cross-appeal.

Lord Justice Holroyde gave the judgment, with Mr Justice Jay agreeing. The appeal was allowed, the discharge order was quashed, and the case was remitted to the District Judge.

1. Speciality. Under the Extradition Act 2003, the requested person had to prove that Romania lacked practical and effective speciality arrangements. The strong presumption of compliance could be displaced only by compelling evidence. The approach was consistent with R (Mihaylov) v Regional Prosecutions Office in Burgas (Bulgaria) [2022] EWHC 908 (Admin) and Brodziak and others v Circuit Court in Warsaw, Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin).
2. The respondent’s participation in the Romanian proceedings did not waive his speciality rights. However, the ongoing prosecution, Romania’s unexplained decision not to issue another European Arrest Warrant, and the absence of evidence of previous breaches did not amount to compelling evidence of an intended breach. The possibility of a later warrant or a request for consent under section 54 remained open. The later conviction was not final and did not alter the conclusion.
3. Cross-appeal. The court had no jurisdiction to hear a cross-appeal. Sections 28 and 29 confined the requesting authority’s appeal to the decision which resulted in discharge. Section 29(3)(b) could not be read as permitting alteration of other adverse rulings at the same appeal.
4. On remittal, the matters argued at the extradition hearing would return to the District Judge. The respondent could appeal adverse rulings under section 26. Fresh evidence on an issue previously argued could be admitted where appropriate. A wholly new issue could be raised on a later appeal if the statutory conditions were met. In a rare exceptional case, reopening could be sought under rule 50.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

• High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the requesting authority’s appeal, quashed the order of discharge and remitted the case to the District Judge.
• District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), in a judgment dated 6 May 2021, discharged the respondent because speciality was held to bar extradition.