Marian Vasile v Judecatoria Oltenita Romania

An EAW must satisfy Extradition Act 2003, section 2. Whether it is an accusation or conviction warrant is fundamental and must be assessed by reading the warrant as a whole. A warrant is not invalid merely because an entry appears unusual or ambiguous. Missing information or ambiguity may be resolved by further information, provided the document is presented in the prescribed form and is not wholly deficient. The issuing authority bears the burden of proving compliance to the criminal standard, subject to the required spirit of mutual trust and confidence between participating states.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Brennan’s order of 24 November 2020 extraditing him to Romania. The EAW sought his surrender for trial for driving without a licence. It referred to a remand custody warrant, an enforceable judgment, crossed-out periods of detention, and entries concerning attendance at trial and later service of the decision.

The appellant argued that these matters made the EAW internally contradictory as to whether it was an accusation or conviction warrant, amounting to a wholesale failure which could not be cured by further information. The respondent argued that the EAW was clearly an accusation warrant or, alternatively, that any deficiencies were lacunae capable of being resolved at the extradition hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The EAW was not internally contradictory and complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The distinction between an accusation warrant and a conviction warrant was fundamental because the applicable extradition safeguards differed. The issuing authority nevertheless had to prove compliance to the criminal standard, while the court approached the EAW in the spirit of mutual trust and confidence: M, B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy v X, Y, Z.
3. The EAW was clearly an accusation warrant when read as a whole. Its heading expressly sought arrest and surrender for trial. Box B referred to a remand custody warrant and a Council Chamber decision on the same date, rather than a conviction after trial. The crossed-out 30-day entries in Box C did not indicate that a sentence had been imposed.
4. Box D did not create a wholesale failure. Its reference to the trial resulting in the decision was capable of relating to the remand decision identified in Box B, read together with the request for surrender for trial.
5. Alternatively, any ambiguity in Box D could be resolved by further information. Under Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseilles District Court of First Instance, France; Di Benedetto v Court of Palermo, Italy, missing information and ambiguity may be supplied or resolved where the EAW is a document in the prescribed form addressing the statutory requirements. The supplementary information established that the appellant was being investigated and had been summoned for questioning. There was no prejudice or abuse of process.
6. The reasoning in Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland supported using further information as a remedy at the extradition hearing. The judge below was therefore entitled, and right, to admit the further information and order extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
2. District Judge Brennan: on 24 November 2020 ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania.