Crin Stefan v Urzicenci District Court, Romania

Section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 is engaged by a conviction in absentia at the trial resulting in the sentence, not by later proceedings concerned solely with executing or activating a final suspended sentence. This remains so where the later court exercises discretion, provided it cannot alter the nature or quantum of the original sentence. An appeal concerning such activation does not become the relevant trial merely because it is described as an appeal. Where the original trial was attended and the later proceedings neither determine guilt nor modify the sentence, the statutory bar to extradition is not engaged.

The applicant was sought by the Urziceni District Court for service of a one-year-and-four-month sentence following activation of a suspended sentence imposed after an attended Romanian trial. Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition on 29 January 2025. Permission to appeal was initially refused on paper, but the applicant renewed the application and was permitted to rely on an out-of-time ground under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.

He also sought to adduce a Romanian lawyer’s report concerning the appellate proceedings and argued that those proceedings were the relevant trial for section 20 and Article 4a of the amended Framework Decision. The issues were whether fresh evidence should be admitted and whether the Romanian proceedings constituted a trial resulting in the decision for extradition purposes.

1. Fresh evidence. The application to adduce the Romanian lawyer’s report was refused. Applying the test in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), the evidence could reasonably have been adduced at the extradition hearing and would not have had a decisive influence on the result (paras [6]–[12]).
2. Section 20. The relevant trial is the proceeding that led to the final sentence. A hearing solely concerned with execution or activation of a final custodial sentence is outside Article 4a(1) and section 20, unless it modifies the sentence’s nature or quantum.
3. Application. The Romanian proceedings neither determined guilt for the original offence nor altered the original sentence. The applicant attended the original trial. His absence from, or representation at, later activation proceedings did not engage section 20. The principle in Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas C-270/17 PPU was distinguishable because the appeal here concerned sentence execution rather than a merits-based re-examination.
4. Disposition. The District Judge had made no arguable error. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused (paras [17]–[28]).

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Sarah Turnock ordered extradition on 29 January 2025.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Bourne refused permission on paper on 20 May 2025. On renewal, Mr Justice Sweeting permitted reliance on the perfected section 20 ground but refused permission to appeal.