Andrei Jipa v The Hunedoara County Court (Romania)

A conviction arrest warrant must contain sufficient particulars of every offence relevant to the sentence for which extradition is sought. Where sentences have been merged, the warrant must particularise the earlier offence if it contributes to a longer sentence.

Further information may be treated as incorporated into the warrant and may fill a lacuna. It cannot cure a wholesale failure to provide the required particulars or a warrant that is a nullity. Whether the defect is a lacuna or a wholesale failure depends on the warrant and further information viewed in their specific factual context.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order of 20 December 2023 directing his extradition to Romania under a conviction arrest warrant. The warrant concerned a six-year sentence for tax evasion, merged with an earlier four-year sentence, producing a total sentence of seven years.

The warrant described the offence supporting extradition but did not set out the particulars of the earlier offence. Further information supplied those particulars before the extradition hearing. The issue was whether the further information could be considered with the warrant for the purposes of section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, or whether the omission amounted to a wholesale failure invalidating the warrant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent had to establish compliance with section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Following Edutanu and others, particulars of the earlier offence were required because its sentence had been merged with the sentence for the offence supporting extradition and contributed to the longer sentence to be served.
3. Alexander established that further information may supply missing required matters and fill lacunae. The limitation is that a wholly deficient warrant, or a wholesale failure to provide necessary particulars, cannot be cured. The distinction depends on the specific facts.
4. The warrant was in the prescribed form and addressed the required information. It identified the earlier conviction by case number, date, file number and appellate decision. It also explained that the sentence had been merged with the sentence for another offence. The warrant was neither internally contradictory nor merely a bare reference to an additional offence.
5. Although the warrant alone did not provide sufficient particulars of the earlier offence, the further information supplied those particulars and was consistent with the warrant. It was properly treated as incorporated into the warrant. Taken together, the documents provided sufficient particulars of both offences and explained the total sentence of seven years.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s order of 20 December 2023 directing extradition.