Florin Iordache v Dambovita Court, Romania

Extradition to serve a foreign sentence will ordinarily interfere substantially with private and family life, but Article 8 will rarely outweigh the strong public interest in extradition. The decisive question is whether the consequences for family life are exceptionally severe, assessed through a careful proportionality balance.

A person is a fugitive where he knowingly places himself beyond the reach of legal process. The assessment is directed to the substance of the conduct, including the person’s motivation, rather than technical differences between earlier cases. Delay must be assessed by reference to the whole chronology and its causes. Where the requested person is a fugitive, delay may carry reduced weight.

District Judge Daniel Sternberg, sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania on 10 May 2024 to serve a four-year sentence for tax evasion. The appellant appealed with permission granted by Thornton J.

The appeal concerned whether the judge had erred in finding that the appellant was a fugitive, in assessing delay, or in concluding that extradition would be a proportionate interference with his Article 8 rights. The appellant relied on the effect of extradition on his wife and three children and on delay in the Romanian proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates’ judge had been entitled to find that the appellant was a fugitive from Romanian justice. The relevant question was whether he had knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of legal process. It was unnecessary to identify a breach of a specific condition restricting his departure. The judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant left Romania during the criminal proceedings, and thereafter engaged only from abroad, in order to evade the Romanian prosecuting authorities.
2. The court accepted that the facts differed from Wisniewski v Poland, but detailed comparison with earlier cases was unhelpful. The substance of the appellant’s conduct amounted to classic fugitive behaviour. Fugitivity may reduce the weight given to delay and strengthen the public-interest side of the Article 8 balance.
3. The judge was entitled to find that there had been no culpable delay. The chronology included the time taken before indictment, adjournments connected with representation and rehearing, judicial retirement, the COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant’s failures to attend, and his exercise of appeal and review rights. After the appeal rights were exhausted, the Romanian authorities acted promptly in issuing and certifying the warrant.
4. The judge had properly conducted the Article 8 balance. He took account of the substantial effect on the appellant’s wife and children, the children’s interests, the delay, the seriousness of the offences, the appellant’s circumstances in the United Kingdom, and the strong public interest in extradition and reciprocal international arrangements.
5. The judge’s alternative conclusion, namely that extradition would remain proportionate even if the fugitivity finding were wrong, was a genuine and carefully considered alternative basis for the decision. Extradition was therefore not a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Convention rights.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Daniel Sternberg ordered extradition to Romania on 10 May 2024.