Alberto-Mohamad Calin v Braila Court of Law and Ploiesti Court of Law (Romania)

For the purposes of Extradition Act 2003, deliberate absence from trial is synonymous with an unequivocal waiver of the right to attend. The requesting authority must establish that waiver to the criminal standard. Knowledge of the proceedings, experience with criminal justice, departure to avoid prosecution and failure to maintain contact details may cumulatively establish waiver.

Article 8 requires a fact-sensitive balance between private and family life and the public interest in extradition. Fugitive status and continuing offending may materially strengthen the public interest. The residual abuse-of-process jurisdiction is limited and generally requires bad faith, deliberate manipulation or comparable unfairness. Withdrawal of earlier warrants for technical reasons, without a substantive judicial determination, will not ordinarily create an abuse.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against an order made by District Judge Bristow on 16 October 2024 ordering his extradition to Romania under two conviction warrants. The warrants concerned convictions imposed in his absence for theft offences.

Permission had previously been refused on paper by Cavanagh J on 20 February 2025. The renewed application challenged findings of deliberate absence under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, proportionality under section 21 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the refusal to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process following earlier withdrawn warrants.

1. Permission refused. None of the proposed grounds was reasonably arguable so as to show that the District Judge ought to have reached a different conclusion leading to discharge.
2. Under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, deliberate absence is equivalent to an unequivocal waiver of the right to be present at trial. Following Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy [2024] UKSC 9, the requesting authority must prove waiver to the criminal standard. The District Judge was entitled to rely on the applicant’s acknowledged knowledge of the criminal process, his obligations to notify changes of address, his experience as a defendant, his departure from Romania and his failure to maintain contact with the authorities.
3. The Article 8 assessment required a balancing exercise between the applicant’s private and family life and the public interest in extradition. Relevant matters included United Kingdom ties, family life, the seriousness of the offending, sentence, delay and fugitive status. The District Judge properly treated fugitive status as significant, considered the limited evidence of family life and the applicant’s continuing similar offending, and was entitled to conclude that delay did not make extradition disproportionate.
4. The court has a limited residual jurisdiction to stay extradition proceedings as an abuse of process. The inquiry is a broad, merits-based assessment of the public and private interests and all the circumstances. The District Judge properly distinguished Camaras v Baia Mare Local Court, Romania [2016] 1 WLR 1174: the earlier proceedings here had ended because warrants were withdrawn for technical reasons or superseded, rather than because a court had discharged the applicant on the merits. The applicant therefore had no reasonable expectation that the requests could not be pursued again, and the circumstances did not justify a stay.
5. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Cavanagh J had previously refused permission on paper on 20 February 2025.
3. District Judge: on 16 October 2024, District Judge Bristow ordered extradition to Romania.