ZA v Cornetu District Court, Romania

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, oppression is assessed by reference to the person’s physical or mental condition and all the relevant circumstances. The risk of a completed suicide attempt is not the sole focus. Extradition may be oppressive where the requesting state previously failed to protect the person from serious abuse in custody, return is likely materially to aggravate the resulting illness, and effective treatment would be difficult or impossible in the same environment. Ordinary stress and hardship are insufficient, but exceptional medical consequences may outweigh the public interest in extradition. Time spent on bail curfew may be relevant to the Article 8 balance even if it does not reduce the sentence under the requesting state’s law.

The appellant was wanted by Romania to serve a two-year sentence for driving without a licence. His original extradition appeal was unsuccessful. It was later reopened after expert medical evidence diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and linked it to repeated rape and other violence suffered in a Romanian prison.

The court considered whether the fresh evidence should be admitted, whether extradition would be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether it would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights. The central issue was whether the appellant’s condition and the likely effect of return justified discharge rather than adjournment.

1. Fresh evidence. The expert reports of Dr Gregory and Dr Lyall fundamentally altered the factual picture. Applying Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), the reports were admitted.
2. Evidence of abuse and illness. In the absence of evidence from Romania disputing the account, the court accepted that the appellant had suffered repeated anal rape and other serious abuse in Romanian custody. The abuse caused PTSD. The court observed that it would comfortably have exceeded the Article 3 threshold, although that observation was not necessary to the section 25 decision.
3. Oppression under section 25. The likely significant aggravation of PTSD, the resulting significant risk of suicide attempts, and the difficulty or likely impossibility of effective treatment in the environment that caused the trauma went well beyond the ordinary stress and hardship of extradition. The presumption that Romania could prevent a completed suicide did not answer the wider oppression question. The prospect of an untreatable illness was not a necessary condition.
4. Other circumstances. The seriousness of the offence could be considered, but driving without a licence was at the lower end of the scale, particularly after three years and four months of curfew. The curfew was relevant to the Article 8 balance. The appellant’s precarious immigration status did not alter the independent extradition analysis.
5. Disposition. Extradition was oppressive under section 25 and disproportionate under Article 8. The appeal was allowed. The court discharged the appellant under section 25(3)(a), rather than adjourning the hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the original extradition decision was challenged. Permission was refused on some grounds, while the Article 3 issue was stayed pending Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin).
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to reopen was granted on the Article 8 and section 25 grounds in [2024] EWHC 1269 (Admin). The present court granted permission to appeal and allowed the reopened appeal.