Court of Appeal Bucharest, Romania v Adrian Lucian Preda

In extradition cases, the public interest carries very great weight. Article 8 can outweigh it only where the impact on family life is exceptionally severe, extending beyond ordinary disruption and hardship and differing in kind, not merely degree. The court must consider the family as a whole and each member’s position without lowering that threshold. On appeal, the question is whether the district judge’s overall proportionality decision was wrong, with appropriate respect for findings of primary fact. Delay is relevant, but does not itself justify discharge unless it changes the assessment of the family impact.

The Court of Appeal Bucharest sought Adrian Preda’s extradition to serve the remainder of a Romanian sentence for serious offences involving organised violence. On 5 November 2025, a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court discharged him on Article 8 grounds, finding the consequences for his wife and children exceptionally severe in light of their family life in the United Kingdom and the delay in proceedings. The judicial authority appealed under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003. Preda relied on the district judge’s assessment and sought to adduce fresh evidence concerning one child’s neuropsychological assessment. The central issue was whether the discharge decision was wrong after considering the fresh evidence and the competing public interest and family-life consequences.

The appeal was allowed. The discharge order was quashed and the case remitted to the District Judge under section 29(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appellate approach and fresh evidence. Under section 29, the question was whether the District Judge ought to have decided the relevant question differently. This was not a rehearing: primary findings, particularly findings based on live evidence, required appropriate respect. The court focused on whether the overall proportionality decision was wrong; defects in the reasons did not alone establish that it was. Applying the approach in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin); [2009] 4 All ER 324, the court considered the unopposed fresh evidence de bene esse and assessed it with the evidence heard below.
2. Public interest and exceptionality. The public interest in extradition weighed very heavily. The offences involved organised violence, life-threatening injuries and an intended killing; the respondent also had a substantial sentence remaining. Under the principles in Norris v Government of the USA (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9, Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) and Andrysiewicz v Poland [2025] UKSC 23, Article 8 could outweigh that interest only if the consequences were exceptionally severe. The impact had to differ in kind, rather than simply degree, from the disruption ordinarily associated with extradition or imprisonment.
3. Family impact. The court considered each family member’s position and the family unit as a whole, as required by Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39. That holistic assessment did not lower the high exceptionality threshold. The children would face serious disruption, and BB’s ADHD and ODD made transition more difficult for him. However, the children were functioning and forming social relationships; their mother was capable and resilient; and they knew their maternal grandparents and the area where they lived in Romania.
4. Delay and the balance. The delay was significant and relevant, but did not elevate the family impact to the required threshold. Weighing the fresh evidence and all the circumstances, the court concluded that the serious consequences for the family did not outweigh the public interest in extradition. The District Judge had given too little weight to the gravity of the offending and too much weight to the family impact.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial authority’s appeal was allowed. The discharge order was quashed and the case remitted to the District Judge under section 29(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 5 November 2025, the District Judge discharged Preda on Article 8 grounds.