Cosmin Comaneci v Romani

On an extradition appeal engaging article 8, the court must assess proportionality on the particular facts. The child’s best interests are a primary consideration, but there is no requirement of exceptionality. That consideration must be balanced against the strong public interest in enforcing sentences, honouring extradition obligations and avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven for fugitives.

Where an appellant has deliberately remained outside the requesting state, the passage of time and the life subsequently established in the United Kingdom may carry reduced weight. Fresh evidence is admissible only where the statutory conditions are met and it is reasonably arguable that it could change the proportionality assessment. The birth of another child did not, on the facts, make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal against a District Judge’s order dated 15 September 2023 requiring his extradition to Romania to serve 11 months’ imprisonment for assault and public-order offences. The District Judge accepted that extradition would seriously affect the appellant’s partner and children but concluded that the interference with their article 8 rights was proportionate.

Linden J refused permission on the papers on 3 May 2024. The appellant argued that the District Judge had misassessed the available family and financial support and had given insufficient weight to the changes in his life since the offending. He also sought to rely on fresh evidence, including an expert report and evidence concerning the birth of a second child. The central issues were whether permission should be granted and whether the fresh evidence could realistically alter the article 8 balance.

1. Permission and original proportionality assessment. The court agreed with Linden J that the appellant’s challenges to the District Judge’s evaluation of the evidence amounted to disagreement with her conclusions. No misdirection in law was alleged, and the District Judge had correctly applied the relevant article 8 principles.
2. Weight of the appellant’s circumstances. The impact of extradition on the appellant’s partner and children remained the weightiest factor against surrender. However, the appellant was a fugitive from justice. His conduct was responsible for much of the delay and meant that he could not claim to have been lulled into a false sense of security while establishing a life in the United Kingdom. The District Judge was therefore entitled to reduce the weight given to the age of the offences and the appellant’s subsequent family life.
3. First fresh-evidence application. The paediatrician’s report added nothing substantial to the evidence already before the District Judge. Its conclusions were consistent with her findings and would not have altered the outcome. It was not reasonably arguable that admission of the report would lead the appellate court to conclude that extradition was incompatible with article 8.
4. Second fresh-evidence application. The birth of the appellant’s second child was genuinely new evidence. Nevertheless, the appellant’s partner would have access to state benefits and National Health Service support, and the evidence showed that she could obtain childcare assistance from friends. The additional responsibilities and hardship reinforced the family-impact factor but did not create consequences of such severity as to outweigh the public interest in extraditing a fugitive offender.
5. The application to admit fresh evidence was refused. There was no realistic prospect that the court would find extradition incompatible with article 8 at a substantive appeal. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewal application for permission to appeal refused. The court upheld the District Judge’s proportionality conclusion and refused admission of the proposed fresh evidence.
• Westminster Magistrates Court: the District Judge ordered extradition on 15 September 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Linden J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 3 May 2024.