Marius-Mihai Nisipeanu v District Court of Dolj, Romania

Specialty is not infringed merely because a requesting state imposed one aggregate sentence for extraditable and non-extraditable offences. The requested person must show compelling evidence that the requesting state lacks practical and effective arrangements to prevent punishment for offences outside the extradition order.

A warrant remains sufficiently particularised where it contains the statutory particulars when issued. The later discharge of one offence does not itself invalidate the warrant.

Under Article 8, a child’s best interests are a primary consideration, but not necessarily paramount. The court must conduct an evidence-based balancing exercise, without applying an exceptionality test. Fresh evidence can justify allowing an appeal only if it would have changed the decision and required discharge.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order by a district judge requiring his extradition to Romania on a conviction warrant.

The warrant concerned three offences. Two were extradition offences: supplying small quantities of cannabis and possessing methadone. The third, involving psychoactive substances not criminalised in the United Kingdom at the material time, was discharged for failure to satisfy dual criminality. Romania had imposed one aggregate sentence for all three offences.

The appeal concerned specialty, the particularity of the warrant, and the effect of Article 8 on the appellant’s family, including his autistic son. The appellant also relied on fresh evidence concerning his son’s condition and care.

1. Specialty. The appeal court applied the established presumption that a requesting state will comply with its international obligations. The burden lay on the appellant to provide compelling evidence that Romania lacked practical and effective arrangements to protect specialty. Romanian law implemented the specialty principle, and Article 598 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure provided a remedy where enforcement was obstructed. An aggregate sentence did not, without more, establish a breach of section 17 of the Extradition Act 2003. Ground 1 failed.
2. Particularity. Section 2 required the conviction warrant to contain particulars of the identity, conviction and sentence. The warrant particularised all three offences and stated the sentence imposed. Its validity was assessed when issued. The later exclusion of one offence did not make the warrant insufficiently particularised. Edutanu was an unusual decision turning on its particular evidence and did not govern this case. Ground 2 failed.
3. Article 8. The district judge had carefully assessed the evidence, treated the child’s interests as a primary consideration, and gave cogent reasons for concluding that the child was not solely dependent on the appellant. The appellate court found no error in those findings. A child’s best interests must be given substantial weight, but they are not invariably paramount. The balancing exercise remains whether the interference with family life is justified by the public interest in extradition.
4. Fresh evidence. Under section 27(4), fresh evidence could justify allowing the appeal only if it was unavailable at the extradition hearing, would have produced a different decision, and that decision would have required discharge. The additional evidence showed genuine difficulties but also access to nursery, family, social-services and benefits support. It did not make extradition disproportionate or require discharge.
5. The appeal was dismissed and the order for extradition remained in force.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed; the district judge’s extradition order was upheld.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 17 February 2023, extradition was ordered for two offences and refused for the third because the dual-criminality requirement was not satisfied.