Marius Bologh v Court of Law in Sibiu (Romania)

On an appeal concerning proportionality under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the appellate court asks whether the extradition decision was wrong, focusing on the outcome rather than treating every error or omission in the reasons as decisive. The public interest in extradition is weighty and includes enforcement of sentences and the avoidance of safe havens. Its weight varies with the seriousness of the offending, but a UK court must respect the requesting state’s sentencing regime. Family hardship, including effects on vulnerable dependants, must be assessed on the evidence. Available welfare and social-care support may mitigate that hardship. A person who deliberately evades supervision and enforcement materially strengthens the public interest in extradition. Fresh evidence is admissible only where it was unavailable at the original hearing and could have affected the result.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court order requiring his surrender to Romania under section 21(3). He had received an eight-month custodial sentence, initially suspended subject to supervision and other conditions. After failing to attend supervision and placing himself beyond the Romanian authorities’ reach, the suspension was revoked.

The appellant relied on article 8 family-life rights, asserting that extradition would cause exceptional hardship to his partner and his mother, both of whom had health difficulties and depended financially or practically upon him. He also sought to rely on fresh evidence concerning his mother’s deteriorating condition. The central issues were whether the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was wrong and whether the fresh evidence justified a different outcome.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal could succeed only if the District Judge ought to have decided the article 8 question differently and would then have been required to discharge the appellant.
2. The appellate court applied the approach in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski: factual findings, particularly where evidence was heard, should ordinarily be respected. The focus is on whether the proportionality outcome was wrong. Errors or omissions in the reasons do not by themselves establish that result. The same overall-evaluation approach was confirmed in Love v USA.
3. The public interest in extradition remains weighty. It includes enforcing sentences, honouring treaty obligations and preventing safe havens. Its weight varies with the seriousness of the crime. The court must respect the requesting state’s sentencing regime and should not substitute its own view of the appropriate sentence. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to compare the conduct with other criminal conduct when assessing seriousness, as explained in Lipski v Regional Court in Torin, Poland.
4. The District Judge properly recognised that the offence involved relatively minor dishonesty, but was not trivial. He also properly recognised the substantial disruption and hardship likely to affect the appellant’s vulnerable mother and partner. The expected availability of welfare and social-care support was a legitimate countervailing consideration. The appellant’s deliberate breach of supervision and flight from Romania gave the public interest in extradition great weight. The resulting balance was not wrong.
5. Fresh evidence was governed by the two-stage approach in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi. Evidence unavailable at the original hearing must first be identified, and the court must then ask whether it could have produced a different decision. Only the evidence of the mother’s 2024 eye surgery was genuinely fresh. It added some weight against extradition but did not make the original proportionality conclusion wrong. The claim that extradition was incompatible with article 8 was therefore rejected.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 17 August 2023, the District Judge ordered the appellant’s surrender to Romania under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Farbey J on 12 February 2024. The appeal was dismissed under section 27.