Cristian Ioan Blaj and Others v Court of Alesd, Romania and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Aikens |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: (1) CO/5584/2014, (2) CO/3238/2014 & (3) CO/2107/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 June 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Simon
Case No: (1) CO/5584/2014, (2) CO/3238/2014 & (3) CO/2107/2014
David Josse QC and Louisa Collins (instructed by Virdee Solicitors) for the 1 st Appellant
James Stansfeld (instructed by Tuckers Solicitors) for the 2 nd Appellant
Simon Gledhill (instructed by HP Gower) for the 3 rd Appellant
Mark Summers QC and Daniel Sternberg (instructed by CPS) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 03/03/2015
This is the judgment of the court to which both of us have contributed.
These appeals were heard together because they raise the common issue of whether extradition of the three appellants to Romania pursuant to European Arrest Warrants ("EAWs") would be contrary to their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") because of the conditions in prisons in Romania. Each of the appellants has been convicted of serious offences in a Romanian court and each was sentenced to a prison term. All the appellants left Romania, and the EAWs seek their surrender to serve the outstanding sentences. Each appellant alleges that, if returned to serve his sentence in Romania, there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because of the poor conditions in all Romanian prisons ("the Article 3/prison conditions ground"). The first appellant also contends that the EAW seeking his surrender is invalid because the EAW does not comply with section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the EA") because it does not give the date of his conviction and sentence; alternatively that his surrender would disproportionately interfere with his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR ("the Article 8 ground"). The third appellant also raises the Article 8 ground.
Romania has been an EU member state since 2007. Romania is therefore now designated as a Category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the EA and so Part 1 of the EA, as amended, applies to all proceedings concerning requests for extradition to it, including these appeals. We will call the various Romanian judicial authorities that seek the surrender of the appellants "the Romanian JAs" unless one authority has to be identified individually.
The offences of the three appellants, the EAWs seeking the appellants' extradition and the extradition proceedings below
Cristian Ioan Blaj ("Blaj") was born on 12 October 1982. Blaj was convicted of an offence of death by careless driving which was committed on 31 March 2007. The EAW seeking his extradition does not specify the date on which the conviction took place nor the date when sentence was imposed. However, it is accepted that Blaj was sentenced to serve a prison sentence of three years. The extradition of Blaj is sought by the Court of Alesd, pursuant to a "conviction" EAW issued on 18 November 2010. On 17 October 2013 the National Crime Agency ("NCA") certified the EAW under section 2(7) of the EA. Blaj was arrested in the UK on 21 November 2013. After a contested extradition hearing before District Judge Coleman ("DJ Coleman") on 12 November 2013, his extradition was ordered on 27 November 2013. He is on conditional bail.
Before DJ Coleman, Blaj resisted his extradition on four grounds. Only three of those grounds are pursued on appeal, viz. (i) that the EAW fails to comply with the requirements of section 2(6)(b) and so is not valid (the validity ground); (ii) the Article 3/prison conditions ground and (iii) the Article 8 ground.
Claudiu Stefan Roman ("Roman") was born on 19 October 1987. On 21 March 2012 Roman was convicted and sentenced by the Criminal Division of the Valcea Law Court to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment for an offence of grievous bodily harm. The sentence was affirmed by Pitasti Court of Appeal on 24 May 2012 and then by the Criminal Division of the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 17 September 2012. The extradition of Roman is sought by the Law Court of Valcea, which issued a "conviction" EAW on 10 April 2013. The EAW was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA" – the predecessor of the NCA) on 10 April 2013. Roman was arrested in the UK on 23 October 2013. There were lengthy contested extradition proceedings before District Judge Zani ("DJ Zani") which concluded with a written judgment on 8 July 2014, pursuant to which DJ Zani ordered Roman's extradition.
Before DJ Zani the principal ground on which extradition was resisted was that he had not deliberately absented himself from his trial, but he would not have a right of retrial if surrendered, so that his extradition must be barred by virtue of section 21 (7) of the EA. That ground was rejected and is not pursued on appeal. Instead, Roman wishes to argue a new point, viz. the Article 3/prison conditions point.
Nicolae Trebuian ("Trebuian") was born on 7 September 1975. Trebuian was convicted and subsequently sentenced on 19 March 2001 to 6 years imprisonment for an offence of attempted murder committed on 15 April 1996. The sentence was subsequently amended and made final by the Supreme Court criminal section on 16 May 2000. The Territorial Military Court of Romania issued a "conviction" EAW on 3 April 2009. It was certified by SOCA on 6 September 2013 and Trebuian was arrested in the UK on 24 September 2013. After a contested extradition hearing on 2 May 2014 before Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot ("the DSDJ") the extradition of Trebuian was ordered.
Before the DSDJ the principal ground argued against extradition on behalf of Trebuian was that it would be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights. That ground is maintained on appeal. In addition, Trebuian wishes to argue an Article 3/prison conditions ground which was not argued below.
The issues on the appeals
The scheme of Part 1 of the EA and the case law require a court to consider challenges to an extradition request made in an EAW in a proper order. If there is a challenge to the validity of the EAW document itself, that should be dealt with first: no EAW, no extradition. If an EAW complies with the statutory requirements of section 2, then the next question to be considered is whether the offence for which the requested person's surrender is sought, is an extradition offence. If it is, then the possible bars to extradition should be considered in the order as set out in section 11. Accordingly, we will deal first with Blaj's "validity ground"; next with the Article 3/ prison conditions ground and, lastly, with Blaj and Trebuian's Article 8 ground.
The appellant Blaj's challenge to the validity of the EAW.
Section 2(1), (2), (5) and (6) provide:
2 Part 1 warrant and certificate
(1) This section applies if the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person.
(2) A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains—
(a) the statement referred to in subsection (3) and the information referred to in subsection (4), or
(b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6).
(5) The statement is one that—
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued has been convicted of an offence specified in the warrant by a court in the category 1 territory, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence.
(6) The information is—
(a) particulars of the person's identity;
(b) particulars of the conviction;
(c) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence;
(d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has not been sentenced for the offence;
(e) particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence, if the person has been sentenced for the offence.
Blaj contended that the EAW seeking his return is invalid under section 2 of the EA. Ms Collins argued that section 2(2)(b) and section 2(6) required that a "conviction" EAW must contain information which included, among other things: (a) particulars of the person's identity and (b) particulars of the conviction. Whilst she accepted that there is no principle that the date of conviction must always (and in all cases) be specified, she submitted that there was a requirement that, looked at as a whole, there should be sufficient particulars of conviction and sentence, relying on R (Bader) v Penal Division of the Veszprem County Court, Hungary [2011] EWHC 436 (Admin). Ms Collins accepted that in Box B of the EAW, under the heading 'Final and enforceable Judgment', there are two reference numbers for the criminal sentence (one for the Court of Alesd and the other for the Court of Appeal of Oradea), but pointed out that it did not specify a date of conviction or sentence, nor did the EAW identify the date of conviction elsewhere.
In our view there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc (Romania)
... ... the conclusion of the appeal in the case of Blaj. The appeal in Blaj was dismissed on 17th June ... ...
-
The Court in Mures (1st Appellants) v The Bistrita-nasaud Tribunal, Romania (1st Respondent)
...[2014] EWHC 2528 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 1953 (" Florea I"), and Florea v. Romania [2014] EWHC 4367 (Admin) (" Florea II"). 11 In Blaj v. Court of Alesd, Romania [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin), the Divisional Court (Aikens LJ and Simon J) held that the 27 February 2015 assurance was sufficient to ......
-
Vasile Muntean and Tribunalul Arad Romania and Alexandru - Rares Zaharia and Brasov District Court Romania
...in support of those obligations (Badre v Court of Florence [2014] EWHC 614 at paragraph 41). [42] The RS cited Blaj & Ors v Romania [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin) at paragraphs 37 and 38 where the court referred to: (a) An “Othman compliant” assurance dispelling any doubts as to whether that Roma......
-
Andras Seprey-Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc, Romania
...there since. 3 The basis of Supperstone J's decision regarding prison conditions in Romania was that in the light of Blaj v. Romania [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin), and its approval of the assurance given by the Romanian Ministry of Justice on 26 February 2015 as to the treatment of UK extraditee......
-
The implementation of the CJEU’s Joined Cases Aranyosi and Caldararu by the UK and Irish Courts – A real impact on the protection of fundamental rights in surrender proceedings?
...(n 48), para 126.61. See ML (n 43), paras 91 –99; Dorobantu (n 44), paras 71-75.62. See Chiriac and others v Romania [2016] ECHR 246.63. [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin).64. [2014] EWHC 2528 (Admin).65. [2014] EWHC 4367 (Admin).66. Blaj v Court of Alesd, Romania [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin) [20], [22].......
-
The implementation of the CJEU’s Joined Cases Aranyosi and Caldararu by the UK and Irish Courts – A real impact on the protection of fundamental rights in surrender proceedings?
...(n 48), para 126.61. See ML (n 43), paras 91 –99; Dorobantu (n 44), paras 71-75.62. See Chiriac and others v Romania [2016] ECHR 246.63. [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin).64. [2014] EWHC 2528 (Admin).65. [2014] EWHC 4367 (Admin).66. Blaj v Court of Alesd, Romania [2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin) [20], [22].......