Octavian Radu v The Vaslui Court of Law, Romania

A renewed application for permission to appeal under the extradition procedure may rely solely on a ground not previously pleaded, provided that the renewal notice explains the ground. A new ground must also be accompanied by an application to amend the appeal notice. Applications made after the period for perfected grounds are governed by the general power to vary or supplement a notice, rather than being treated automatically as out of time. For a conviction warrant, the information required by section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 is assessed case by case and in context. There is no fixed requirement to provide every detail of the underlying offending.

An extradition order was made against the appellant by Westminster Magistrates’ Court. His original proposed grounds challenged the decision under sections 14 and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. Permission to appeal and an extension of time were refused on the papers.

The appellant then filed a notice of renewal relying solely on a new ground under section 2(6)(b), contending that the conviction warrant lacked sufficient particulars of the conviction because it did not state the quantity of cannabis sold. The issues were whether the notice was an effective renewal, whether the new ground required amendment under the Criminal Procedure Rules, whether reopening was necessary, and whether the section 2 ground was arguable.

1. Renewal of permission application. The notice of renewal complied with Crim PR 50.22(3). A renewed application may rely on some or all of the original grounds, additional grounds, or only grounds raised for the first time in the renewal notice. The notice must explain those grounds and engage with the reasons given by the single judge. The observations in Opalfvens v Belgium [2015] EWHC 2808 (Admin) were confined to their context and did not require renewal to be limited to previously pleaded grounds.

2. Amendment. Where a new ground first appears in a renewal notice, the notice should be accompanied by an application to amend. Crim PR 50.20(5) provides a short period for amendment after service of the original appeal notice. The general power in Crim PR 50.17(6)(b) supplies the power to permit variation or supplementation after that period. The two provisions are complementary. An application made later is not automatically an application out of time requiring an extension under Crim PR 50.17(6)(a).

3. Reopening. An effective renewal means that the original refusal of permission does not finally determine the permission application. The need for an application under Crim PR 50.27 therefore did not arise. The principle in Hoholm v Norway [2009] EWHC 1513 (Admin) supported reliance on the new ground despite it not having been raised before the extradition hearing.

4. Section 2 ground. The requirements of section 2(6)(b) are assessed case by case and in context. The warrant, read with the further information supplied, stated that the appellant had been convicted of selling cannabis between February and March 2015, identified the relevant offence, and recorded the sentence of two years’ imprisonment. That information went beyond a mere recital of the conviction and was sufficient to assess the seriousness of the offending. The proposed ground was therefore not arguable.

5. The application for permission to amend and the renewed application for permission to appeal were refused.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: An extradition order was made on 1 November 2022.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Lane J refused an extension of time, refused permission to rely on new evidence, and refused permission to appeal. The present court held that the renewal was effective but refused permission to amend and permission to appeal on the new section 2 ground.