Antonio Stefanel Nita v Romania

In extradition proceedings, the passage of time does not materially weaken the public interest where proceedings have been pursued promptly and the requested person has acted as a fugitive. Article 8 requires a balance between the individual’s private and family life and the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and enforcing lawful sentences. Youth at the time of offending, UK residence, family support, curfew and qualifying remand may be relevant, but they do not by themselves make extradition disproportionate. Ongoing qualifying remand should not be projected forward to create an Article 8 case where no presently viable ground, or freestanding anchoring feature, exists.

The appellant, aged 21, challenged an order for his extradition to Romania in connection with a custodial sentence for aggravated non-dwelling burglary committed when he was aged 15½. The extradition order had been made by District Judge Leake after an unopposed hearing. Following changes in the grounds, the renewed application for permission to appeal relied solely on Article 8, based on the age of the offending, an electronically monitored curfew and five months of qualifying remand.

The respondent filed written submissions but did not appear. The central issue was whether those changed circumstances made extradition a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. Permission refused. The court refused permission to appeal and formally refused permission to amend the grounds to raise the Article 8 argument, holding that the proposed ground had no viability.
2. The public interest in extradition remained strong. The offending was relatively serious, a substantial custodial sentence had been imposed, approximately 11 months remained to serve, and the appellant had other similar convictions in Romania. He had come to the United Kingdom knowing of the prosecution and had failed to notify the Romanian authorities of his change of address. He was therefore properly treated as a fugitive.
3. The appellant’s age at the time of the offence, his residence, college attendance and work in the United Kingdom, his mother’s residence and financial support, the curfew and five months of qualifying remand were all taken into account. They did not outweigh the public interest in extradition. The curfew was, on the available information, manifestly non-qualifying by UK standards.
4. Following Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin), it would be wrong in principle to project forward and allow qualifying remand to accumulate until a substantive hearing where there was no presently existing viable Article 8 ground or freestanding anchoring feature.
5. The change of circumstances did not make extradition disproportionate. The public interest considerations decisively outweighed the matters capable of counting against extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Leake ordered extradition on 27 July 2023. Fordham J refused permission to appeal and refused permission to amend the grounds on 26 February 2024.