SA v The Buftea Court, Romania

On an extradition appeal, the court must decide whether the district judge answered the statutory questions wrongly in a way that required discharge. Un tested evidence from a requested person may properly be rejected where it lacks independent verification, and expert diagnoses do not independently establish the cause of a condition. A reasonable-grounds modern-slavery decision does not bind the extradition court. In assessing Article 8 proportionality, vulnerability, time already served, delay, support in the requesting state and risk of re-trafficking must be considered, but none is necessarily decisive. The public interest in enforcing criminal sentences and complying with extradition obligations attracts substantial weight. Fresh evidence is admissible only where the statutory conditions are satisfied and it could have required a different outcome.

SA appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order extraditing him to Romania to serve the balance of sentences for serious sexual offences committed when he was aged 16. The district judge rejected challenges based on trafficking, sexual abuse, section 20, Articles 5 and 6, and Article 8 of the ECHR.

After the district judge’s decision, SA obtained a conclusive grounds modern-slavery decision and sought to adduce it, together with recovery-needs guidance, as fresh evidence. The appeal raised whether the district judge’s factual findings, section 20 conclusions and human-rights assessments were wrong, and whether the fresh evidence could have required his discharge.

1. Appeal dismissed. The test under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 was whether the district judge had answered a statutory question wrongly, or whether fresh evidence would have required a different answer. The court applied Surico v Italy [2018] EWHC 401 (Admin).
2. The district judge was entitled to reject SA’s untested account of trafficking and sexual abuse. The expert evidence derived those matters from SA’s self-reporting, and the diagnosis of PTSD did not independently establish its cause. The reasonable-grounds decision did not bind the court.
3. The finding that SA had deliberately absented himself from the trial for Offence 2 was unimpeachable. The evidence established his awareness of the proceedings and trial date. The apparent inconsistency in the arrest warrant was resolved by further information. It was therefore unnecessary to decide the alternative retrial issue. If it had arisen, the evidence supported a right to retrial, consistently with Cretu v Romania [2016] 1 WLR 3344 (Admin), and the presumption that Romania would comply with Article 6 was not rebutted.
4. The Article 5 and 6 challenge failed. Applying Popoviciu v Romania [2023] UKSC 39, the evidence did not establish a flagrant denial of justice. The absence of an explicit statutory regime for special measures for vulnerable adults did not itself rebut the presumption of a fair retrial.
5. The Article 8 assessment was open to the district judge. Vulnerability, mental-health impact, delay, time already served, domestic support and re-trafficking risk were weighed against the substantial public interests in sentence enforcement and fulfilment of extradition obligations. Time remaining to serve was important but not decisive, applying the guidance in Molar v Slovakia [2018] EWHC 2589 (Admin) and Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin).
6. The fresh evidence application was refused under section 27(4). Although the first statutory condition was satisfied, the further conditions were not. The conclusive grounds decision added no independently verified evidence, concerned forced criminality in the UK, and disclosed no nexus with the Romanian offences. The guidance in Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), and the treatment of modern-slavery evidence in R v Brecani [2021] 1 WLR 5851 (CA) and R v AAD [2022] EWCA Crim 106, were considered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): SA’s appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 19 March 2024, District Judge Sternberg ordered extradition to Romania under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.