Alba Iulia Court of Law, Romania v Ferencz Ioan Szabo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Murray |
| Judgment Date | 18 August 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2123 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1160/2022 |
[2023] EWHC 2123 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Murray
Case No: CO/1160/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 28 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr David Ball (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Appellant
Mr Robbie Stern (instructed by JD Spicer Zeb Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 15 June 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down are deemed to be 18 August 2023 at 10:30 am.
This is an appeal by a judicial authority, the Alba Iulia Court of Law in Romania, under section 28(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) against the discharge of Mr Ferencz Ioan Szabo pursuant to section 21(2) of the 2003 Act by DJ Clews, following a hearing before him at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 14 March 2022.
The judge set out his reasons for discharging Mr Szabo in a judgment dated 26 March 2022 and handed down on 28 March 2022 (“the Judgment”). The judge discharged the respondent as he found that there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of a breach of the respondent's rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in respect of the initial 21-day period that he would be expected to stay in Bucharest-Rahova Prison (“Rahova”) before being moved elsewhere in the Romanian prison estate to serve the bulk of his sentence.
The judicial authority has also applied to have admitted on appeal two additional prison assurances:
i) one dated 4 March 2022 given by Commissioner of Correctional Police, Dr Dan Halchin, General Director, National Administration of Penitentiaries (“the March 2022 Assurance”); and
ii) the other dated 8 April 2022, given by Chief Prison Police Commissioner Gabriel Paun, Director, Directorate for Prison Safety and Execution Regimes (“the April 2022 Assurance”).
Mr Paun had given the prison assurance dated 9 December 2021 (“the December 2021 Assurance”), which was before DJ Clews at the extradition hearing on 14 March 2022 and which the judge found to be inadequate in relation to Rahova.
The judicial authority appeals with the permission of Lane J, given in his order dated 21 February 2023, made on a review of the papers. Lane J also directed that the judge determining the appeal should determine the judicial authority's applications for each of the March 2022 Assurance and the April 2022 Assurance to be admitted in these proceedings.
In the perfected grounds of appeal dated 12 April 2022, which were before Lane J, the judicial authority advanced a single ground of appeal, namely, that the judge was wrong to order Mr Szabo's discharge on the basis of the risk of breach of his rights under article 3. In the perfected grounds, the judicial authority put forward two limbs to this ground, namely, that:
i) the judge was wrong to exercise his case management powers to refuse to admit material that had been provided to the court in Gheorghe v Romania [2020] EWHC 722 (Admin), an earlier case where conditions in which a requested person would be held at Rahova were at issue, given Mr Szabo's failure prior to the extradition hearing to provide any statement of issues (as he had been directed to do) or to raise any point about the December 2021 Assurance as it related to Rahova; and
ii) the judge erred in finding that extradition would not be compatible with Mr Szabo's rights under article 3 without having made a request further to article 613(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of 30 December 2020 (OJ 2021 L149/10) (“the Trade and Cooperation Agreement”), also known as an Aranyosi request.
For the appeal hearing, bearing in mind its application to adduce the March 2022 Assurance and the April 2022 Assurance, the judicial authority advanced a third limb to its single ground of appeal, namely, that there are binding assurances before the court following the decision of the Divisional Court in Marinescu v Romania [2022] EWHC 2317 (Admin) that fall to be considered and that dispose of the appeal, namely, the March 2022 Assurance and the April 2022 Assurance.
The Arrest Warrant
The respondent's extradition to Romania is sought by the judicial authority to serve a sentence of 2 years, 2 months, and 8 days (approximately), the respondent having been convicted in Romania of offences of (i) theft and (ii) driving without a licence. The extradition request was issued on 18 November 2021 and certified by the National Crime Agency on the same day as an arrest warrant under Part 1 of the 2003 Act (“the Arrest Warrant”). The Arrest Warrant is governed by Title VII of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The respondent, who is 33 years old, has a lengthy offending record in Romania. His international conviction certificate shows 19 convictions in Romania, including the convictions in relation to which his extradition is now sought.
According to the further information provided by the judicial authority, the background is as follows. On the evening of 29/30 May 2015, Mr Szabo committed “aggravated theft”. In a hotel carpark, he broke the window of a van and stole its satellite-navigation equipment.
By criminal judgment no 620 of 22 November 2016, made final on 28 December 2016, Mr Szabo was sentenced to “3 years and 536 days” [sic], “for committing the crime of aggravated theft in a state of post-conviction recidivism.” At the time of his conviction and sentencing, he had 17 prior convictions for various offences of theft.
Mr Szabo was imprisoned from 27 January 2017. Just over a year later, on 13 March 2018, he was released on parole. He still had a remaining sentence of 433 days in prison. This conditional release had been ordered by a judgment of Deva District Court, made final on 13 March 2018, that is, the day of his release.
On 19 May 2018, during the supervision period of his conditional release from prison, Mr Szabo was found to be driving without a licence in the City of Alba Iulia in Romania. At the time of his conditional release, he had been informed that if he committed a new offence during the supervision period, the conditional release would be revoked.
Following a trial at which Mr Szabo was present, according to the Arrest Warrant, by a judgment dated 5 January 2021, made final on 21 July 2021, he was sentenced to 1 year for driving without a licence. In addition, his conditional release from the sentence imposed in 2016 was revoked, and he was ordered to serve the remaining 433 days of the 2016 sentence. The total sentence was therefore 1 year and 433 days, or, in other words, 2 years, 2 months, and 8 days (approximately). Mr Szabo should have begun serving that sentence on the day it became final, namely, 21 July 2021, however he did not.
On 12 August 2021, a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) was issued in relation to Mr Szabo. On 18 November 2021, the Romanian authorities were notified that Mr Szabo had been arrested in the United Kingdom, and the Arrest Warrant was issued.
Proceedings in the UK
On 18 November 2021, Mr Szabo was arrested in the UK for driving without insurance and for driving whilst disqualified. While he was being held in custody at Bromley Police Station, the police became aware that he was wanted for similar matters in Romania. The Arrest Warrant was issued and certified, and Mr Szabo was arrested under that.
Mr Szabo was brought before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 19 November 2021 for an initial hearing. He was represented by the duty solicitor. He raised three issues: (i) whether Romania can be considered a valid judicial authority (as had been raised in a case called Romania v Tiganescu (CO/741/2020), but has since been abandoned); (ii) whether extradition would infringe his rights under article 3 of the ECHR; and (iii) whether extradition would infringe his rights under article 8 of the ECHR.
The article 3 point was not particularised at this stage, this being only an initial hearing. Mr Szabo was granted bail. The following directions were given:
i) Mr Szabo was to apply for legal aid within 7 days;
ii) Mr Szabo was to provide a statement of issues and all evidence relied on by 7 December 2021;
iii) the judicial authority was to provide any prison assurance and any further information by 24 December 2021;
iv) the judicial authority was to provide an opening note by 28 January 2022; and
v) the extradition hearing was set down for 4 February 2022.
The judicial authority complains that Mr Szabo did not comply with these directions or notify the court or the judicial authority that he had any difficulties in doing so. The judicial authority served an opening note dated 7 January 2022, in accordance with the directions.
The matter proceeded to the hearing that had been set down for 4 February 2022. At that hearing, Mr Szabo was assisted by a representative from JD Spicer Zeb Solicitors (“JD Spicer”). JD Spicer explained to the court that legal aid had been refused in December, Mr Szabo had received a quote from other solicitors that he could not afford, and he had just now received a quote from JD Spicer that he could afford. Mr Szabo applied to adjourn the hearing. The judicial authority opposed the adjournment application on the basis that no good reason had been advanced as to why steps had not been taken earlier than the day of the extradition hearing by Mr Szabo to secure representation. The case was, however, adjourned with the following further directions:
i) Mr Szabo was to file and serve a statement of issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial