Adrian Manea v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hearing dates: 17 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 24 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

This is the Claimant's application for permission to claim judicial review. He challenges two Orders:

a. The Order for his extradition dated 7 February 2023, which was made by District Judge Clarke, sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

b. The Order of Lang J dated 27 June 2024, refusing his application to reopen the Order of DJ Clarke and/or to reopen his application for permission to appeal that Order.

The Claim Form was filed on 11 July 2024. On 23 July 2024, Sheldon J directed a hearing of the Claimant's application for permission to claim judicial review and ordered a stay of the extradition of the Claimant pending the outcome of that hearing.

Background

It is only necessary to set out the background in brief outline.

The extradition proceedings which led to the extradition order of 7 February 2023 were not the first such proceedings in which the Claimant had been involved. His extradition was ordered by District Judge Zani on 6 July 2018, to serve sentences of 5 years' and 8 years' imprisonment on 2 separate extradition (conviction) warrants relating to some of the offences which are the subject of the 7 February 2023 Order. The Claimant had resisted extradition on various grounds, all of which DJ Zani rejected, including under sections 10 and 65 Extradition Act 2003 (dual criminality) and under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in relation to prison conditions in Romania.

The Claimant appealed DJ Zani's Order. However, before the appeal was determined, a merged sentence of 9 years' imprisonment with 6 years' prohibition of rights was imposed by the Bacau Appeal Court for six offences committed by the Claimant. This became final on 11 December 2018. The Judicial Authority then withdrew the existing arrest warrants, on which the Claimant was duly discharged. A fresh warrant was issued but, on 4 March 2019, DJ Zani ordered the discharge of the Claimant on that warrant on the grounds that it did not comply with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. He, again, rejected the Claimant's argument under Article 3 ECHR.

The 7 February 2023 Order was based on a conviction warrant which was issued on 14 March 2019 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 15 July 2021. That warrant was based on 2 convictions for 6 offences. The first conviction, on 19 February 2013, was for:

a. Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs (“Offence 1”), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment with 6 months' prohibition of rights;

b. Forgery of administrative documents (“Offence 2”), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.

The second conviction, on 20 December 2023, was for:

a. Illegal international risk drug trafficking (“Offence 3”), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment and 6 years' prohibition of rights;

b. Illegal internal risk and high risk drug trafficking (“Offence 4”) for which the Claimant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and 4 years' prohibition of rights;

c. The organisation, management or financing of drug trafficking (“Offence 5”) for which the Claimant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment;

d. Establishing a group for drug trafficking/organised crime (“Offence 6”) for which the Claimant was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and 2 years' prohibition of rights.

These offences had all taken place between 2009 and 2010. The Claimant was wanted to serve the merged sentence of 9 years etc referred to above.

At the hearing before the Westminster Magistrates Court, which took place on 3 January 2023, the Claimant was represented by specialist Counsel – Mr Ben Siefert – who had represented him in the earlier extradition proceedings. The Claimant's grounds for objecting to his extradition were, again, dual criminality in respect of Offences 1, 3 and 4 on the arrest warrant, and that his extradition would be contrary to Article 8 ECHR. No point was taken on Article 3 ECHR because, as DJ Clarke noted at [34] of her judgment, appropriate assurances had been given by the Judicial Authority.

In her judgment, DJ Clarke examined Offences 1, 3 and 4 carefully and concluded that they did amount to offences under English law. She held that they were equivalent to the offence of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs contrary to sections 4(1) and 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. She also considered the drugs which were the subject of the arrest warrant and held that each was a controlled drug at the time of the Claimant's offending.

On 10 February 2023, the Claimant appealed to the High Court against DJ Clarke's Order. The grounds of appeal were the same as the grounds of challenge before the Magistrates' Court.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Swift J on 1 August 2023 and by Morris J after a renewal hearing on 5 December 2023. Again, the Claimant was represented in the appeal by specialist, albeit different, Counsel – Mr Martin Henley-up to and including the hearing before Morris J.

There were then delays in making arrangements for the Claimant's surrender to Romania.

On 26 June 2024 the Claimant made the application which was considered and rejected by Lang J. This was 2 days before he was due to be extradited. In his application the Claimant argued that the Order for his extradition should be reopened because there had been a new legal precedent which meant that his extradition would be a miscarriage of justice. This was the decision of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (“CACD”) in R v Margiotta [2023] EWCA Crim 759 which, in fact, had been handed down nearly a year earlier on 30 June 2023.

Lang J pointed out that Margiotta was therefore available to the Claimant prior to the decisions of Swift J and Morris J in the appeal proceedings and yet no point had been taken on it. She also said that she did not consider that the Margiotta decision was decisive in any event.

The present claim

The present claim for judicial review was filed on 11 July 2024, as I have said. In it, the Claimant argues that the Margiotta decision demonstrates that he had not committed any offence which is recognised by English law, at least so far as Offence 3 is concerned, and that this accounts for 8 years of the 9 year merged sentence. He argues that the fact that Margiotta was not considered by the Westminster Magistrates' Court or the High Court during the appeal from DJ Clarke's Order amounts to a significant error of law and that his 9 year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the relevant offences given the impact of the Margiotta decision. In writing, at least, the Claimant says that his representatives' “oversight” in failing to rely on Margiotta amounted a incompetence of such a degree as to satisfy the test in Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 (Admin) and to be a serious procedural irregularity which rendered the relevant decision(s) unjust. The Claimant also argues that his extradition would be contrary to Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the ECHR.

The hearing before me

The Claimant has absconded and did not appear at the hearing before me. Instead, he sent Ms Ruxandra Moise who describes herself as his life partner and the mother of his children. It was she who filed the N463 and the N461, together with supporting documentation, on 11 July 2024. She is not legally qualified and the documents which she filed do not suggest that the Claimant had authorised her to conduct the litigation on his behalf. At the beginning of the hearing I told her that I was not willing to hear her without evidence that she was authorised to represent the Claimant and, even with such authorisation, I would have to consider whether to allow her to do so. She told me that she could obtain authorisation and I adjourned the hearing for 15 minutes to give her an opportunity to do so.

A letter from the Claimant, authorising Ms Moise to represent him, was then provided. I heard arguments as to whether to allow Ms Moise to make submissions. She said that she wished to address the Court for 15–30 minutes and would not be putting forward anything which was new, or relying on additional evidence. Mr Evans objected, principally on the grounds that I should not indulge the Claimant given that his inability to attend court and make submissions himself stemmed from the fact that he had absconded. Ms Moise said that she had made more than one application for the Claimant to attend by CVP but had not had a response.

I saw the force of Mr Evans' point but, having considered the guidance in Graham v Eltham Conservative and Unionist Club [2013] EWHC 979 (QB), I took the exceptional course of granting Ms Moise's application. This was a case her making short submissions on behalf of her partner on a matter of real importance to their family, rather than a lay representative making a habit of appearing before the courts, whether for reward or otherwise. I also thought it was possible that Ms Moise would be able to assist the Court in relation to the background and I wanted to ensure that the Claimant had been given every opportunity to put his...