Bogdan Ovidiu Cristian Dimin v Alba Iulia Court of Law, Romania

A stay pending an appeal in another case should be granted only where the pending appeal is likely to be decisive or determinative of the case, followed by a separate consideration of the interests of justice. The approach must be rigorous, and extradition proceedings should be dealt with expeditiously.

A stay was refused where the anticipated appellate decision concerned a different country’s early-release provisions, the issue was only one of several Article 8 points, and the evidence did not permit a clear assessment of the prospects of early release. The exceptional lateness of the application and the age of the case provided additional reasons for refusal.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order of 17 October 2022 directing extradition to Romania under a conviction warrant for a 16-month sentence. Permission to appeal was granted on 10 March 2023. The appeal raised grounds under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At the substantive hearing, after hearing expert evidence and oral submissions, the appellant made an application for the proceedings to be stayed pending the Supreme Court’s judgment in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland. The central issue was whether that pending judgment was likely to be decisive or determinative of the Article 8 issue and, if so, whether the interests of justice required a stay.

1. Application for a stay refused. The court applied the established test that a case should be stayed pending an appeal in another case only if the pending appeal is likely to be decisive or determinative in the instant case. A rigorous approach is required. If that threshold is met, the court must then consider whether a stay would be in the interests of justice (Czach v Poland, as cited and discussed in Marcisz v the Regional Court in Bielsko-Biala Republic of Poland).
2. The possible significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrysiewicz was not likely to be decisive. Early release was only one of eight Article 8 grounds and had not been given particular prominence. The proposed appeal concerned Polish, rather than Romanian, early-release provisions.
3. The evidence did not permit a clear view of the prospects of early release. The Romanian expert’s evidence showed that release depended on several discretionary and uncertain matters, including the proportion of the sentence served, conduct in custody, the regime in which the prisoner was held, fulfilment of civil obligations, and reform and reintegration.
4. There were also compelling interests-of-justice reasons against a stay. The case was already old, delay had occurred in preparing and presenting the expert evidence and amended grounds, and the application was made at the very last stage of the hearing without adequate explanation for its lateness.
5. The court was prepared to receive written submissions if the Supreme Court judgment was handed down before judgment in the present appeal and appeared material. It was not prepared to grant an open-ended stay after the full appeal had been heard and the case was ready for determination.

• District Judge: On 17 October 2022, District Judge Sternberg ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania in respect of a conviction warrant for a 16-month sentence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Andrew Baker J on 10 March 2023. The present court refused the late application for a stay pending the Supreme Court’s judgment in Andrysiewicz. The supplied judgment records the stay ruling and does not state the final determination of the substantive appeal.