Mircea Georgescu v Constanta Tribunal, Romania

On an appeal under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, delay is not an automatic bar to extradition and does not operate as an on/off switch merely because the requested person is a fugitive. The court must assess the effects of delay on private and family life, while giving those effects reduced weight where the requested person caused the delay by fleeing or concealing his whereabouts. Delay by the requesting authority may reduce the public interest in extradition, and delay by the executing authority may strengthen the Article 8 case, but fugitives generally have no right to interrogate judicial authorities about administrative delay. The appellate court reviews the proportionality decision and does not conduct a rehearing unless a new issue, fresh evidence or changed circumstances require a de novo assessment.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order extraditing him to Romania to serve a two-year sentence for tax evasion. He had fled Romania after pleading guilty and was found to be a fugitive, so the section 14 bar was unavailable.

The challenge concerned the section 21 Article 8 balancing exercise. The claimant argued that more than five years’ delay by the National Crime Agency in certifying the European Arrest Warrant should have been treated as a material and decisive factor against extradition. The central issue was whether the district judge had applied an impermissible on/off approach to delay and fugitivity.

Appeal dismissed. The district judge had applied the correct legal approach and had not reached a decision which ought to have been different.

1. Under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, an appeal on an issue determined below is by way of review. The High Court may intervene where the judge misapplied legal principles, made a material finding no reasonable judge could have made, omitted a relevant factor, relied on an irrelevant factor, or reached an irrational or perverse conclusion. It must not interfere merely because it would have attached different weight to the factors.
2. Where a new issue, fresh evidence or changed circumstances are properly raised, the appellate court may be required to assess the relevant extradition bar de novo. Fresh evidence must satisfy the statutory conditions and must be capable of producing a different decision resulting in discharge.
3. The section 21 Article 8 assessment requires a fact-sensitive balance between the weighty public interest in extradition and the interference with private and family life. The consequences must be exceptionally serious before the public interest is outweighed. The seriousness of the offence, treaty obligations, mutual confidence and the need to prevent the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven remain important considerations.
4. Delay must be assessed by its effects, not simply by its duration or alleged culpability. A fugitive cannot rely on delay caused by fleeing, evading arrest or concealing his whereabouts as a factor in itself. The effects of the delay on family life remain relevant, but fugitivity reduces their weight. Unexplained or substantial delay by the requesting authority may reduce the public interest, while delay by the executing authority may increase the weight of the Article 8 factors.
5. There is generally no right for a fugitive to investigate or interrogate requesting or executing authorities about administrative delay. Evidence voluntarily provided may be considered, and exceptional cases such as discrimination or intentional obstruction may require a different approach.

The district judge considered the claimant’s settled family life, his support for his son and grandchildren, the delay and the public interests in extradition. The claimant’s circumstances did not produce exceptionally severe consequences. The extradition order therefore stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Leake ordered extradition to Romania on 28 March 2024.