PT v Romanian Judicial Authority

An extradition appeal may be reopened only where the circumstances are exceptional, there is a real risk of real injustice, and reopening is necessary to provide a practical remedy for that risk. Finality remains important, and fresh evidence merely strengthening an argument previously advanced will ordinarily be insufficient. The court may assess the offence, sentence, representation at the original hearing, and the potential significance of the new evidence. Separately, where the extradition documentation clearly records that the requested person is entitled to a retrial, that statutory issue is ordinarily resolved without reopening the appeal.

The applicant had been ordered to be extradited to Romania to serve a two-year sentence. Earlier applications concerning section 20 and human-rights grounds had been refused. He applied under Criminal Procedure Rules 50.27 to reopen the appeal and admit fresh psychiatric, medical and therapy evidence, relying principally on alleged repeated rape in custody and its effect on the severity of extradition. He also sought to reopen the section 20 issue and raise a new section 25 ground. The central questions were whether the fresh evidence satisfied the exceptional conditions for reopening, and whether the section 20 issue remained arguable.

1. The application was granted in respect of the Article 8 and section 25 points, but refused in respect of section 20.

2. Finality is essential in extradition proceedings. A person cannot ordinarily lose before the district judge and then obtain reopening simply by finding further evidence on an argument already canvassed. Under The United States v Bohen, something must have developed after the determination.

3. Rule 50.27(3)(b) requires both a real injustice and necessity for reopening to avoid it. The relevant question is whether reopening would provide a practical remedy for injustice. It is sufficient at this stage that there is a real risk of real injustice, provided the circumstances are exceptional.

4. In assessing exceptionality, the court may balance the nature of the offence, the sentence, any credit likely to arise from domestic bail conditions, the applicant’s representation below, and the quality and potential significance of the new evidence. Here, evidence of physical injuries credibly said to result from repeated anal rape in custody had not been treated by the district judge as probative of sexual abuse. If accepted, the fresh material could arguably be determinative and could avoid a real risk of injustice.

5. On section 20, Merticariu established that a clear tick in Box 3.4 showed that the applicant would have a right to a retrial on return. That was sufficient in this case, and the grounds for reopening that issue were not made out.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Earlier permission applications concerning section 20 and Article 8 were refused by Hill J on 22 April 2022 and on oral renewal by Fordham J on 7 July 2022. The fresh-evidence application was adjourned by Heather Williams J and later by Graham Knowles J. The present court reopened the Article 8 and section 25 points but refused reopening of section 20.