Veronica Grigorie v Valcea Law Court (Romania)

On a High Court extradition appeal involving Article 8 rights, the court must evaluate proportionality afresh on the evidence currently available. It may assess likely consequences and real risks, including the possibility that children will enter local authority care or be separated, and may obtain further information from social services.

The court must balance those consequences against the strong public interests in extradition, including treaty obligations, serving sentences and preventing safe havens. A cautious comparison with likely domestic sentencing may be used only as a cross-check; the extradition court must not perform a proxy sentencing exercise. The appeal was dismissed because extradition was proportionate.

The appellant, a Romanian national with settled status in the United Kingdom, appealed against an order made by District Judge Turnock at Westminster Magistrates Court on 15 September 2022 directing her extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of four years and four months for repeated transnational fraud.

She relied principally on the Article 8 rights of her two British children, aged seven and three, and her elderly mother, whom she cared for. Fresh evidence indicated that the children were likely to enter local authority care and faced a real risk of separation. The central issue was whether, on an evaluation afresh, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of those affected.

1. Appeal dismissed. Extradition was not an incompatible or disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, the children or the grandmother.
2. The High Court had to determine the Article 8 issue afresh on the evidence as it stood at the appeal. The magistrates’ decision remained an evidential platform where its findings were unaffected by fresh evidence and were otherwise unimpeachable. The High Court had no power to remit the case for a fresh hearing.
3. In assessing the consequences of extradition, the court could determine what was likely to happen and could also consider real risks and possibilities. There was no single legal litmus test based solely on likelihood. Further information, particularly from the relevant local authority, could appropriately be obtained.
4. The court accepted that the children were likely to be taken into local authority care, that there was a real risk of sibling separation, and that separation from their mother would be traumatic and could affect the son’s developmental progress. The grandmother’s care arrangements and family life would also be seriously imperilled.
5. These matters were weighed against very strong public interests: ensuring that convicted persons serve their sentences, honouring treaty obligations and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven. The offending was serious, repeated, transnational fraud, aggravated by recent similar offending and a previous suspended custodial sentence. The appellant had returned to the United Kingdom knowing of the proceedings and the risk of imprisonment.
6. Lord Judge’s question in HH v Italy—whether domestic sentencing courts would still impose immediate custody after proportionate allowance for dependent children—could be used cautiously as a cross-check. It did not require the extradition court to determine the domestic sentence or equate domestic imprisonment with extradition. On the facts, immediate custody would probably have been imposed, but that was only perspective and not the answer to the extradition issue.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Turnock ordered extradition at Westminster Magistrates Court on 15 September 2022. The High Court evaluated the Article 8 issue afresh and dismissed the appeal.