Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania

In an extradition appeal, an adjournment may be refused where the only identified grounds have no realistic prospect of success and the available materials conclusively answer them. A specific diplomatic assurance may resolve an Article 3 challenge based on prison conditions. Under Article 8, the court must assess extradition in the round, balancing the individual and family circumstances against the public interest. A period of tagged curfew does not reduce a foreign sentence where the foreign courts have determined, under their own law, that it is not a deprivation of liberty. Findings of fact based on oral evidence will not be disturbed where no arguable error is shown. Strong public-interest considerations may decisively outweigh personal, family and health factors.

The appellant challenged an extradition order to Romania on Article 3 and Article 8 grounds. The extradition order had been made by District Judge Zani after an oral hearing on 2 February 2022. A section 25 and health argument had previously been rejected by May J and, on renewal, by Sir Ross Cranston. Permission on Article 3 had been stayed pending Marinescu v Romania, and the Article 3 and Article 8 issues were later directed to be considered together.

At the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment to instruct new lawyers. The respondent relied on a specific prison-conditions assurance and further information concerning the appellant’s proceedings in Romania. The central issues were whether those materials should be admitted, whether an adjournment was required, and whether either Article 3 or Article 8 disclosed an arguable basis for permission to appeal.

The court granted the respondent permission to rely on the 30 September 2022 assurance and the 12 January 2023 Further Information, refused the adjournment, and refused permission to appeal on both Article 3 and Article 8. The removal period was ordered to begin no earlier than 15 March 2023.

1. Adjournment. The appellant’s representatives identified no viable point beyond the assurance and curfew issues. Those issues were straightforward and the new materials plainly answered them. In the interests of justice and the public interest, an adjournment was therefore unnecessary.
2. Article 3. Although the earlier prison-conditions assurance had been challenged in light of Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the specific assurance dated 30 September 2022 provided the complete answer. No viable Article 3 argument remained.
3. Article 8. The appellant argued that 537 days on conditional bail with a tagged curfew had effectively satisfied the Romanian sentence. The Romanian courts had determined that the curfew could not reduce the sentence because it was not a deprivation of liberty. The only deduction was 18 days spent on qualifying remand. The sentence therefore remained substantially outstanding.
4. The Article 8 assessment was required to be made in the round. The finding that the appellant was a fugitive applied the correct test: whether he had deliberately and knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process. That factual finding was supported by the evidence and was not reasonably arguable as wrong. In any event, an error on fugitivity would not have altered the Article 8 outcome.
5. Limited United Kingdom ties, the appellant’s relationship and health factors were decisively outweighed by the strong public interest in extradition, the seriousness and persistence of the offending, and the substantial sentence remaining to be served.

The extradition appeal proceedings were finally determined. The solicitors were permitted to come off the record. There was no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the appellant’s legal aid costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court). Extradition was ordered by District Judge Zani after an oral hearing on 2 February 2022.
2. High Court. May J rejected the section 25 and health argument on the papers on 14 July 2022 and refused permission to appeal on Article 8.
3. High Court. Sir Ross Cranston rejected the renewed section 25 and health application on 13 September 2022 and adjourned the renewed Article 8 application.
4. High Court. At the present hearing, Mr Justice Fordham refused permission to appeal on Article 3 and Article 8, refused an adjournment, and made consequential directions.