Marian Raducan v Bihor Court, Oradea, Romania

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8, the Administrative Court will not determine an unresolved entitlement under the requesting state’s domestic law. The requesting state’s courts should ordinarily decide whether restrictions imposed during UK extradition proceedings qualify for a sentence deduction. A pre-extradition Article 8 argument may be weighty where extradition would inevitably lead to immediate unconditional release, but reliable evidence of that inevitability is required. A short electronically monitored curfew did not, on the evidence, establish an arguable entitlement to a parity deduction or make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant had been ordered to be extradited to Romania following a corruption conviction. He had been subject to an electronically monitored curfew of three hours each night while on bail in the UK. He argued that the curfew constituted house arrest under Romanian law and should be deducted from his custodial sentence on a parity basis, so that extradition would result in immediate release and would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights.

The Romanian court had adjourned the appellant’s domestic appeal pending determination of the UK extradition proceedings. The issue was whether the unresolved Romanian sentence-deduction question provided a reasonably arguable basis for permission to appeal.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The appellant had not shown an arguable basis for concluding that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.
2. The court was being invited to decide an entitlement under Romanian law. That was not reasonably arguable as the role of the UK extradition court. It was appropriate for the Romanian judicial authorities to determine whether the electronically monitored curfew constituted house arrest and attracted a parity deduction.
3. There was no reliable material establishing that a three-hour daily curfew, or a shorter curfew, amounted to house arrest rather than a restriction on freedom of movement. Nor was there clear evidence that extradition would inevitably lead to immediate release.
4. A case in which extradition warrants had been withdrawn after a Romanian court treated a sentence as served did not establish what would happen here. The present Romanian court had not made a parity-deduction ruling, and the cited decision concerned qualifying remand and different extradition arrangements.
5. The opportunity for a pre-extradition decision on the issue had been provided by the adjournments in Romania, but it had not produced the outcome sought. The proposed fresh evidence was refused because it could not be decisive.
6. A delayed order pending the next Romanian hearing was also refused. The Romanian court had repeatedly adjourned to await the UK court’s determination, which had now been given.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Tempia ordered extradition on 1 February 2021. Bourne J refused permission to appeal on 28 November 2022 in relation to the then-pursued Article 3 grounds. Fordham J refused permission on the Article 8 ground and refused the related procedural applications.