Lica Opera v Iasi City Court of Law (Romania)

Fugitive status in extradition is assessed subjectively. The requested person must knowingly and deliberately place himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process. The assessment is fact-sensitive and does not require every identified feature to be present. Departure may establish fugitivity even without proof of a precise summons date where the person knew of impending proceedings and acted evasively.

On an Article 8 appeal, the appellate court may intervene where the overall evaluation was wrong, but it must respect the first-instance assessment. Delay may reduce the public interest in extradition, although that will be rare after deliberate absconding. Medical objections require intense, evidence-based examination of the condition, its effects and the requesting state’s ability to provide care.

The appellant challenged the order of District Judge Bristow dated 5 March 2024 ordering his extradition to Romania under a conviction warrant. He had been sentenced in Romania to 18 months’ imprisonment for aggravated theft. The grounds initially concerned whether he was a fugitive, but permission was later granted to add a broader challenge to the Article 8 proportionality assessment.

The appellant argued that the District Judge could not find that he knowingly left Romania to evade proceedings because the dates of the summonses were not established. He also relied on the delay since the offence, his private and family life in the United Kingdom, his health and the absence of convictions here. The central issues were whether the fugitive finding was open on the evidence and whether extradition was a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant was a fugitive and that extradition was proportionate.
2. Fugitive status is a subjective question. The requested person must deliberately and knowingly place himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process: De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin). The three linked themes identified in Makowska v Poland [2020] EWHC 2371 (Admin)—locational dynamism, informational deficit and intended consequential elusiveness—are evaluative aids, not a litmus test. The inquiry remains fact-specific, and the themes need not all be present.
3. The absence of evidence establishing the precise date on which summonses were served did not invalidate the finding. The appellant knew that criminal proceedings were underway, expected to attend court and be punished, left Romania without informing the authorities, later learned of the summonses and made no enquiries or attempt to return. Those matters supported the conclusion that his departure was knowingly evasive. The finding was therefore open on the evidence and could properly weigh against him in the Article 8 balance. This was consistent with Ristin v Romania [2022] EWHC 3163 (Admin).
4. On an Article 8 appeal, the appellate court may stand back and conclude that the overall evaluation should have been different where crucial factors were weighed so significantly wrongly as to make the decision wrong: Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin). That threshold was not met.
5. Delay between the offence and conviction was relevant, but the offence had resulted in an 18-month custodial sentence and could not properly be described as minor. The public interest in extradition therefore remained high. Delay after conviction was attributable to the appellant’s fugitive conduct. His health required evidence of the condition, its effects and the requesting state’s ability to provide treatment; the presumption of adequate Romanian prison medical facilities was not rebutted. The unsupported assertion of HIV-related stigma did not justify judicial notice. The appellant’s Romanian language and cultural familiarity and the absence of United Kingdom convictions were properly treated as relevant or neutral factors. Extradition was proportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Bristow’s extradition order dated 5 March 2024 was dismissed. Permission had been granted by Sheldon J on the fugitive-status ground, and Mr Justice Constable permitted amendment to add the broader Article 8 challenge.