George Marin & Anor v Court of Ilfov, Romania

On an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the question is whether the district judge’s decision was wrong in a way that required discharge. Fresh evidence from a respondent may be admitted where this is in the interests of justice. A requested person may have unequivocally waived the right to attend an appeal by voluntarily leaving the requesting state after conviction and sentence, failing to maintain contact with the authorities and lawyers, and making absence reasonably foreseeable. Article 8 requires a genuine balancing exercise. Serious offending and the weighty public interest in extradition may outweigh hardship to an interdependent family, health difficulties, delay and the absence of fugitive status.

George Marin and Bogdan Marin appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against orders made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 26 October 2023. The district judge ordered their extradition to Romania to serve sentences imposed after convictions for complicity in attempted murder, treated in England as equivalent to violent disorder.

The appeals concerned whether section 20 barred extradition because the appellants had not been present at their Romanian appeal hearing, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with their Article 8 rights and those of their families. The High Court also determined applications to admit fresh evidence.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The district judge’s decision was not wrong within section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The governing question was whether he ought to have answered a statutory question differently so as to require discharge: Love v United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin).
2. The appellants’ further evidence was refused. Although it concerned a subsequent change of circumstances, it was not decisive and did not satisfy the remaining conditions in section 27(4). The respondent’s further information was admitted in the interests of justice. It clarified and reinforced the district judge’s findings. Reply evidence from the requested person was also admissible: FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin).
3. Section 20 did not bar extradition. On the criminal standard, each appellant had unequivocally waived the right to attend the Romanian appeal. Each had attended the first-instance trial, voluntarily left Romania before sentencing and appeal, knew of the conviction and sentence, knew that an appeal had been lodged, and failed to maintain contact with the authorities or instructed lawyer. An express warning that the appeal might proceed in absence was not essential. The circumstances made that outcome reasonably foreseeable. The facts differed materially from Bertino v Italy [2024] UKSC 9, where the finding of unequivocal waiver had been erroneous.
4. The Article 8 challenges also failed. The district judge had considered the appellants’ health, family circumstances, the tightly interdependent family unit, the second appellant’s child, the seriousness of the offending, the sentences, delay, United Kingdom ties and the public interest in extradition. The family circumstances did not make extradition disproportionate. The erroneous reference to the second appellant as a fugitive was immaterial because the district judge would have reached the same conclusion without it. The nature of the second appellant’s educational-centre sentence did not alter the result.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition orders dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 26 October 2023.