Doru Constantin Giana v Court of Roman, Romania

When physical disability is relied on under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must adopt an intensely fact-specific approach. It must identify the individual’s basic health, care and mobility needs and assess whether the requesting state has provided sufficiently specific information about measures capable of meeting them.

A general assurance about prison accommodation, medical treatment or the possibility of postponing a sentence is insufficient where the person requires regular practical assistance. Untrained fellow prisoners cannot ordinarily be treated as an adequate substitute for professional care where dependence on them may undermine dignity or create a real risk of oppressive treatment. The same deficiencies may establish incompatibility with article 3 of the Convention.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Pilling at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 22 April 2022 for his extradition to Romania to serve a sentence of three years and 10 months.

He had a serious physical disability, including the amputation of his left leg and dependence on a wheelchair. The appeal concerned prison conditions and assurances, oppression under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, compatibility with article 3, and proportionality under article 8. Fresh evidence concerning Romanian prison conditions and the proposed use of a supporting prisoner was admitted. The central issue was whether the assurances adequately addressed his specific care and mobility needs.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant was discharged. The appeal succeeded under section 25 and, to the relevant extent, under section 21 and article 3.
2. On an appeal involving fresh evidence, the High Court must decide for itself whether the lower court would have reached a different conclusion if it had possessed that evidence. On a section 25 appeal, the court must independently determine whether the person’s physical or mental condition makes extradition unjust or oppressive.
3. The assessment under section 25 is intensely fact-specific. The court must first establish what the individual requires to maintain a basic standard of health and wellbeing. It must then assess whether the requesting state’s proposed provision adequately meets those needs. General information about cell size, sanitation and medical services does not answer specific concerns about mobility, bathroom access, safety rails, personal care and other necessary adjustments.
4. The proposed appointment of a supporting convict was not an adequate substitute for professional care. Regular assistance with bathroom access and ordinary personal tasks should not be provided by an untrained fellow prisoner where that arrangement may humiliate or debase the detainee. Dependence on such assistance could aggravate the appellant’s vulnerability and create a real risk of oppressive treatment.
5. The proposed ability to postpone or interrupt the sentence under article 589 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not cure the deficiency. It was unclear how that provision would operate for a person already living with a permanent disability, and waiting until imprisonment became impossible could expose him to harm to his health, wellbeing and dignity.
6. The assurance dated 14 October 2021 was inadequate. The fresh evidence and the absence of sufficiently specific information meant that the appellant’s return would be unjust and oppressive. It was unnecessary to determine the article 8 balancing exercise or the proposed retrial ground.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was allowed. The appellant had already been discharged on 27 July 2023.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Pilling ordered extradition to Romania on 22 April 2022.