Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)

In an extradition appeal, an Article 3 challenge based on risks from non-state agents requires evidence of an arguable gap in the requested person’s protection. A prison assurance may satisfy that requirement where fairly read it provides for assessment and management of the person’s relevant vulnerabilities and needs.

Under Article 8, strong public-interest factors supporting extradition to serve a substantial custodial sentence may outweigh residence, employment, family life and the absence of domestic convictions. A former police officer’s feared treatment in prison will not affect the balance where the Article 3 protection arrangements are adequate. Permission to appeal requires a realistic prospect of success.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three years and 10 months following convictions for offences involving unlawfully held ammunition and the misappropriation of traffic fines. A District Judge ordered extradition on 25 August 2023.

The appellant sought permission to appeal, contending that the Romanian prison assurance did not adequately protect him, as a former police officer, against harm from non-state agents. He also challenged the Article 8 proportionality assessment and relied on new information concerning a possible Romanian application relating to one conviction. The central issues were whether the Article 3 assurance was sufficient, whether the Article 8 balance was arguably wrong, and whether the new information justified an adjournment.

1. Permission refused. There was no realistic prospect of success on any ground, and the application was refused.
2. As to Article 3, the relevant question where the risk arises from non-state agents was whether the requested person would receive reasonable protection. The assurance had to be read fairly and as a whole. It provided for assessment of the individual’s needs, including mental, physical and psychological needs relevant to vulnerability and the risk posed by other prisoners.
3. The District Judge had recognised the appellant’s potential vulnerability as a former police officer and had concluded that the assurance was adequate and sufficient to comply with Article 3. Whether the point had been expressly raised below or had been identified by the Judge, the judgment addressed it. There was no evidence of an arguable protective gap, no need for a further assurance, and no basis for an adjournment.
4. The Article 8 challenge also had no realistic prospect. The public interest in extradition to serve a 46-month sentence for serious offences, including the public interest in the United Kingdom not being regarded as a safe haven by other Convention countries, strongly outweighed the factors relied upon by the appellant. Those factors included settled residence, employment, fixed accommodation, family life, no domestic convictions, absence of fugitivity and the impact on his family.
5. The appellant’s status as a former police officer did not realistically tip the Article 8 balance, because the Article 3 protection arrangements were sufficient. The new information concerning a possible application in Romania did not alter that conclusion and had not been relied upon as a basis for an adjournment.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — Permission to appeal refused by Fordham J on 1 May 2024.
• District Judge — Extradition ordered on 25 August 2023 following an oral hearing on 25 May 2023.