Leonida Vasile v Brad City Court, Romania

In an extradition case engaging Article 8 of the ECHR, ordinary financial and emotional disruption to family life, including the impact on young children, will generally be insufficient to outweigh the public interest in extradition. Something more is required, such as particular hardship exceeding the consequences ordinarily attendant on extradition or imprisonment. An appellate court should not interfere with an extradition judge’s evaluative balance unless the decision was arguably wrong or the factors were weighed in a plainly erroneous manner.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Romania on an accusation warrant concerning two serious distraction burglaries against the same vulnerable victim. He relied on his wife and four children, who were settled in the United Kingdom and financially and emotionally supported by him.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Linden J. The renewed application challenged the assessment of the impact of extradition on the family and the weight given to the appellant’s Romanian criminal record. The central issue was whether the evidence disclosed exceptionally severe or otherwise particular hardship sufficient to make extradition incompatible with Article 8 and barred by section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Renewed application refused. The appellant had no arguable prospect of successfully challenging the extradition decision.
2. The district judge had directed himself correctly on the applicable Article 8 principles and had undertaken the required Celinski balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition will ordinarily outweigh the family’s Article 8 rights unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe.
3. The district judge had considered all material factors. These included the appellant’s wife and four children, their financial and emotional dependence on him, his settled position in the United Kingdom, his lack of UK convictions, the seriousness and recency of the alleged offending, the vulnerable victim, the substantial sums involved and the public interest in complying with extradition obligations and avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for criminals.
4. Extradition will almost always cause financial and emotional disruption, particularly where young children are involved. That ordinary impact does not itself establish severe hardship. Evidence of particular hardship over and above the consequences ordinarily attendant on extradition was absent.
5. The district judge had not failed to contextualise the appellant’s criminal record, since he expressly referred to the absence of convictions in the United Kingdom. His evaluative conclusion was open to him and was not arguably wrong. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• District Judge Greenfield: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania on 27 July 2023.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Linden J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 5 February 2024.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.