Mihai Toma v Third And Sixth Districts of Bucharest, Romania

On an Article 8 extradition appeal, the appellate court asks whether the district judge’s proportionality conclusion was wrong. It focuses on the outcome, while examining the reasons with care; errors or omissions do not by themselves establish that the outcome was wrong.

There is no exceptionality test. The court must balance interference with private and family life against the weighty public interest in extradition. Delay may reduce that interest’s weight, but its effects are significantly diluted where the requested person knowingly evaded ongoing criminal proceedings or convictions.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Minhas’s decision ordering his extradition to Romania under two conviction warrants concerning driving without a licence and two shoplifting offences.

The sole ground was that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his article 8 rights. The alleged errors concerned fugivity, family circumstances, the seriousness of the offending and delay. The central issue was whether the district judge’s overall proportionality assessment was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. None of the alleged errors, individually or collectively, showed that the district judge’s proportionality decision was wrong.
2. Under Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 and H(H) v Italy Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, no exceptionality test applies. The court must balance interference with private and family life against the weighty public interest in extradition, whose weight varies with the nature and seriousness of the offences. Delay may reduce that weight and increase the impact on family life.
3. On appeal, the court focuses on whether the district judge’s outcome was wrong. The reasons must be considered carefully, but errors or omissions do not necessarily establish that the proportionality decision itself was wrong: Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Others [2015] EWHC 1274 and Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin).
4. The finding of fugivity was open to the district judge. Fugivity is assessed subjectively and may arise where a person knowingly places himself beyond the reach of criminal process. Failure to notify a change of address and departures while aware of unresolved proceedings supported the finding. The absence of a charge was not determinative. The guidance in De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin), Makowska v Poland [2020] EWHC 2371 (Admin) and Ristin v Romania [2022] EWHC 3163 (Admin) informed the analysis.
5. The district judge had considered the appellant’s private and family life and was entitled to find that the impact on his partner and children would not be exceptionally severe. The low seriousness of the offences militated against extradition, but the sentences imposed and other convictions supported extradition. In light of fugivity, the weight placed on delay was justifiably minimal: Kortas v Poland [2017] EWHC 1356 (Admin).

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Minhas ordered extradition on 29 February 2024. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 28 January 2025.