Ionut Samu v Sibu Court, Romania

In an extradition appeal under article 8 of the Convention, the appellate court asks whether the district judge reached the wrong outcome. The assessment remains a balance between the significant public interest in extradition and the interference with private and family life.

A requesting state’s sentencing policy and assessment of the seriousness of offending should generally be respected. A comparatively short period of custody, a limited curfew, delay, and family difficulties will not ordinarily outweigh the public interest in extraditing a fugitive unless the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe. Fresh evidence must be both admissible under the applicable test and sufficiently decisive to justify admission.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Romania. The arrest warrant concerned convictions for supplying psychoactive substances and driving without a licence. The district judge discharged the appellant in relation to the drugs offence because the warrant lacked sufficient particulars, but ordered extradition in relation to the driving offence and rejected the appellant’s article 8 case.

Permission to appeal was granted on whether the district judge had reached the wrong conclusion in applying the balance identified in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski. The appellant also sought to rely on fresh evidence concerning the birth and medical difficulties of his daughter. The central issues were whether the proportionality assessment was wrong and whether the fresh evidence should be admitted.

1. Appeal and fresh evidence. The appeal was dismissed. The application to admit the fresh evidence was refused because it was not decisive and admission was not in the interests of justice.
2. Appellate approach. Applying Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski, the single question for the appellate court was whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. The focus was on the outcome, rather than on re-weighing every factor afresh.
3. Public interest and sentencing policy. The district judge was entitled to treat the seriousness of the driving offence, the outstanding sentence and the appellant’s fugitive status as factors favouring extradition. The English court should not substitute its own view of the appropriate sentence for that of the requesting state, provided the sentencing regime is compatible with the Convention.
4. Article 8 balance. Even assuming in the appellant’s favour that early release would reduce the period of custody to less than five months, his fugitive status remained a very strong factor favouring extradition. A six-hour night-time curfew was entitled to little weight, particularly without evidence of its practical impact. The evidence concerning the children did not establish that the consequences of interference with family life would be exceptionally severe, nor that the family could not relocate to Romania.
5. The fresh evidence, whether considered alone or cumulatively with the evidence before the district judge, did not advance the appeal. There was no basis to conclude that the district judge ought to have reached a different proportionality conclusion or ordered the appellant’s discharge.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 29 July 2024, District Judge Zani discharged the appellant in relation to the drugs offence but ordered his extradition to Romania in relation to the driving offence, rejecting his article 8 claim.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted on 23 October 2024. The appeal was dismissed and the application to admit fresh evidence was refused.