Danil Nicolae Mirita v Dambovita County Court (Romania)

In an Article 8 extradition appeal, delay is not a freestanding factor. The court must examine its effect on the public interest in extradition and on the individual’s private and family life. Unexplained delay is not automatically culpable, and culpability is not decisive without considering the overall proportionality balance. The passage of time may reduce the public interest in extradition or increase the interference with family life, but the result remains fact-sensitive. Where the offence is serious, a substantial sentence remains to be served, and the person knew of the conviction and sentence, extradition may remain proportionate despite delay, settled family life and significant hardship.

District Judge Tempia ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania on 1 December 2022 under a European Arrest Warrant relating to convictions for conspiracy to form a drug-trafficking organisation and cannabis cultivation. The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, relying on Article 8 of the ECHR and alleged delay between domestic warrants issued in 2009, further proceedings in 2015 and the European Arrest Warrant issued in 2016.

The District Judge rejected the appellant’s evidence about the 2009 warrant and found extradition proportionate. Fresh Romanian documentation established that the 2009 warrants had been issued and subsequently set aside for procedural reasons. The central issue was whether that factual error affected the proportionality outcome.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had made an error of fact by rejecting the evidence that warrants were issued in 2009 and had relied on that error in finding that there had been no delay.
2. There was delay between the 2009 warrants and the renewed summons in December 2015. However, the period was largely unexplained but was not so excessive, and there were no sufficient circumstances, to justify assuming culpable delay. The prosecution of co-defendants did not establish that the authorities were ready for trial in the appellant’s case, particularly where the proceedings involved different conspirators and cross-jurisdictional evidence.
3. The correct approach, identified in Gomulka v Poland [2024] EWHC 460 (Admin), is to treat delay and culpable delay as part of the Article 8 proportionality assessment. The court must ask whether the passage of time diminished the public interest in extradition or increased the impact on private or family life. The cause of delay is less important than its effect.
4. The District Judge had considered the age of the offences, the appellant’s open residence and family life in the United Kingdom, the effect on his wife and child, and the likely financial and emotional consequences. The appellant’s wife could work again, his mother could assist with childcare, and state support was available if necessary.
5. Against that hardship stood the constant and weighty public interest in extradition, the serious cross-jurisdictional offending, the appellant’s leadership and co-ordinating role, and the substantial sentence of two years and four months that remained outstanding. The appellant had known of the proceedings and, since 2016, of his sentence. The consequences of extradition were not exceptionally severe, and the balancing exercise remained proportionate.

• District Judge Tempia: ordered extradition on 1 December 2022.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, holding that the factual error concerning the 2009 warrants did not make the proportionality outcome wrong.