Iftimie v Romanian Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 15 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1637 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/150/2016 |
| Date | 15 June 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1637 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
CO/150/2016
Mr G L Hall (instructed by Dalton Holmes Gray) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms A Bostock (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal against a decision of District Judge Blake, who decided that the appellant should be returned to Romania to serve a sentence totalling 3 years and 6 months imposed for two offences of robbery, both committed on the same day on the date in 2011.
The appellant in fact had committed three offences of robbery on that same day. For reasons which are not apparent he was convicted in 2011 of the third of those robberies. Each was a street robbery and one imagines the circumstances were similar.
He was not at that stage dealt with for the other two robberies, perhaps because the victims had not come forward or there was not at that stage evidence to pursue the case against him. However, following his conviction he was sentenced to 2 and a half years' imprisonment and that sentence was suspended for a period of 4 1/2 years.
He came to this country some time, it seems, in 2014. I put it that way because the authorities in Romania discovered the existence of the two subsequent robberies and it was decided that he should be prosecuted for those and he was convicted at the end of October 2014 of those two further robberies.
The result of that it is said was to merge the original sentence of four and a half years which had been suspended into the fresh sentence imposed for those two robberies which, as I have said, totalled 3 1/2 years' imprisonment.
The Romanian system clearly permits such merger and there have been a number of cases which have had to consider the effect of the Romanian law on whether the circumstances of the offence which are merged in that way should be included in the warrant.
Essentially, what appears to have been decided is that if that was merely an aggravating feature as, for example, previous convictions would have been then circumstances need not be given and the warrant is valid. If, on the other hand, it was something which in itself added to the sentence which otherwise would have been imposed then it may well be that the circumstances should be given. The matter was comprehensively considered recently in the case upon which Ms Bostock particularly relies, Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law & Ors [2016] EWHC 124.
The warrant itself is not entirely straightforward in determining precisely the basis upon which the sentence was imposed. The District Judge mistakenly, it is said and indeed, clearly mistakenly, thought that there had been a breach by the appellant of the suspended sentence. It must be obvious that there could not have been such a breach by the commission of that offence, since it was committed on the same day as the convictions which are the subject of the warrant.
However, as I say, the description set out in the warrant is far from clear and I hope the Romanian authorities have been informed that they must make clear in any warrant that they issue where this situation has arisen precisely how it was that any suspended sentence or any other sentence was merged, and whether there was a breach; and, in particular, how it affected the ultimate sentence that was imposed and upon which the warrant is based. It is not difficult and for the avoidance of any doubt and maybe to an extent as a 'belt and braces' approach, it would be sensible to set out briefly the circumstances of any offence which was merged so that no argument can be raised that the circumstances should have been included in the warrant. That no doubt is for the future but it will avoid the problems and the somewhat extensive litigation that has resulted from this state of affairs.
Unfortunately, the warrant that is in the bundle before me is apparently not the warrant which was certified because the point was taken as to the details given of the two offences and it was said that they were not sufficient in as much as they did not identify where the offences had been committed.
The warrant in the papers before me does identify the street and the town in which the offences took place but Mr Hall has handed me a copy of the warrant which was certified and that merely says, in the case of each, that at the given time in a public place together with another person he committed the relevant offence. The argument was that merely to say "in a public place" was insufficient because a public place, on the face of it, could be anywhere within the jurisdiction of the particular court. Obviously, it would be reasonable to assume that the offence was within the jurisdiction of the court in Bacau.
Again, that point I do not need, for reasons which will become apparent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oprea v Regional Court in Lublin, Poland
...the relevant determinations it is required to undertake. In this regard, Mr Hall relies on Iftimie v Romanian Judicial Authority, [2016] EWHC 1637 (Admin): [17] and 19 The assessment of deliberate absence is fundamentally one of intent. The court must assess what was in the mind of the per......