Berris Law has successfully represented a client in extradition proceedings imposed by Romanian authorities, with the court ultimately ordering his discharge and finding that his extradition wouldn’t comply with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case involved an extradition request from the Romanian government to enforce a substantial custodial sentence arising from a number of our client’s historic convictions.
The client opposed extradition on several grounds, including challenges concerning the sufficiency of the extradition warrant, the circumstances in which some of the convictions had been entered, and the impact that extradition would have on his established family life in the UK.
Following a contested extradition hearing, the court rejected the challenge concerning the particulars contained within the warrant.
However, Berris Law successfully established that the requirements of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been satisfied in relation to the majority of the convictions relied upon by Romanian authorities.
A considerable issue in the case concerned convictions which had been imposed in the client’s absence.
Where a person was not present at the proceedings that resulted in their conviction, section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the court to consider whether they deliberately absented themselves from the proceedings and, where appropriate, whether they would be entitled to a retrial or equivalent review if returned to the requesting state.
The court found that the client had not deliberately absented himself from the relevant proceedings. The Romanian authorities had not established, to the required standard, that his failure to maintain an up-to-date address amounted to a deliberate decision to waive his right to participate in the proceedings.
The court then considered whether the client would be entitled to a retrial if extradited.
Evidence was provided regarding the procedure available under Romanian law for reopening criminal proceedings. However, Berris Law’s legal team successfully argued to the court that the evidence did not establish an automatic entitlement to a retrial.
Instead, there remained a question as to whether a Romanian court would first have to determine whether the statutory requirements for reopening proceedings had been satisfied.
The court concluded that it could not be satisfied that the client would be entitled to a retrial without the requirement for a further exercise of judicial discretion in Romania. As a result, the requirements of section 20 were not satisfied in relation to most of the convictions.
The court then considered whether extradition in relation to the remaining matters would be compatible with the client’s rights under Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
The court recognised that extradition will ordinarily interfere with family life and that there is a strong public interest in the UK complying with its international extradition obligations. Article 8 challenges in extradition cases therefore face a high threshold.
However, the court found that this was an unusual case involving a combination of factors which, taken together, justified preventing extradition.
Importantly, Berris Law’s legal team argued that the client had not been evading justice, meaning that the delay could not be attributed to deliberate attempts by the client to evade the Romanian authorities.
The court found that the extradition request had already been substantially reduced following its section 20 findings, while the remaining offending was historic.
Berris Law is experienced in representing individuals facing extradition proceedings and can advise on challenges under the Extradition Act 2003, human rights arguments and issues concerning convictions entered in a person’s absence.
Please note that this article has been anonymised to protect the privacy of the client and their family. It provides a general summary of the outcome and should not be regarded as legal advice.
