Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc (Romania)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Supperstone |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3022 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6014/2014 |
| Date | 05 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3022 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Supperstone
CO/6014/2014
Mr Martin Henley (instructed by Messrs Lewis Nedas) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss Hannah Hinton (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
The appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge Coleman at the Westminster Magistrates' Court made on 22nd December 2014 to extradite him to Romania pursuant to two Conviction European Arrest Warrants: Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies.
There were three grounds of appeal. First, that the judge erred in finding that the appellant was a fugitive, such that he had waived his right to be tried in his presence pursuant to section 20 of the 2003 Act. Second, that it was not a breach of Article 3 to return the appellant to Romania. Third, the judge erred in finding that the appellant's Article 8 rights would not be disproportionately interfered with if he was to be returned.
Mr Henley for the appellant confirms that the appellant no longer pursues the issue with regard to section 20. However, he still challenges the finding of the judge that the appellant is a fugitive. It is said that this finding is an important factor within the consideration of the proportionality of extradition when considered within the context of Article 8.
This case was stayed pending the conclusion of the appeal in the case of Blaj. The appeal in Blaj was dismissed on 17th June 2015 and the application to certify a point of law was refused by the court and pronounced in open court on 23rd July 2015. The question before the court in Blaj is set out at paragraph 37 of the judgment of Aikens LJ. The answer to the question is at paragraph 43 of the judgment. The court rejected the Article 3 prison conditions ground of challenge, having accepted an assurance given by the Romanian authorities in relation to the appellant.
Mr Henley submits that on the evidence before the District Judge in the present case there was simply only one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andras Seprey-Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc, Romania
...EAWs. He raised prison conditions in Romania on his appeal. On 5 October 2015, Supperstone J dismissed the appeal: Hozo v. Romania [2015] EWHC 3022 (Admin). An application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged but Supperstone J refused to certify a question as being of su......