Ionel-Remus Grecu (1st Appellant) v Cornetu Court (Romania) (1st Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins,Lord Justice Irwin |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4814/2016 AND CO/5981/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 June 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin)
Lord Justice Irwin
Mr Justice Collins
Case No: CO/4814/2016 AND CO/5981/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Jonathan Hall QC and Benjamin Seifert (instructed by Coomber Rich) for the 1 st Appellant
Jonathan Hall QC and Graeme Hall (instructed by Shaw Graham Kersh) for the 2 nd Appellant
Julian Knowles QC and Julia Farrant (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 24 May 2017
Approved Judgment
Introduction
These cases concern prison conditions in Romania. The Appellants contend that it is inconsistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to return individuals to Romanian prisons, where there is a real risk that their accommodation will consist of less than 3m 2 of personal space. Their submission is that such is the inevitable consequence of the recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Muršic v Croatia, application number 7334/13, 20 October 2016, to the effect that individuals whether facing closed, semi- or open prison conditions must be granted at least 3m 2 of personal space, unless a series of identified cumulative mitigating factors are shown by the issuing judicial authority to be present.
The Facts: Outline
The Appellant Grecu's extradition is sought by an EAW issued on 20 June 2014 by the Cornetu Court, Romania, certified by the National Crime Agency on 3 February 2016. He was convicted of an offence involving the burglary of a door from a house in the course of refurbishment. He was made subject, following conviction, to a sentence of one year and six months, with all but 24 hours remaining to be served. Mr Grecu was arrested on 2 February 2016. The substantive extradition hearing took place on 1 September 2016 and in a judgment dated 19 September 2016, District Judge Ikram ordered the Appellant Grecu's surrender to Romania. His appeal was lodged on 21 September 2016.
Mr Bagarea is sought pursuant to an EAW issued on 6 May 2016, and certified by the National Crime Agency on 12 May 2016. His surrender is sought pursuant to a final decision of the Court of Appeal in Timisoara, finalised on 11 April 2016. He is subject to three years' imprisonment for an offence of cultivating cannabis. Bagarea was arrested on 25 September 2016 and brought before the Westminster Magistrates on the following day. His full extradition hearing took place on 23 November and his extradition was ordered on the same day by District Judge Ashworth. His appeal was lodged on 25 November 2016.
Since the Appellant Grecu is due to serve a term of less than three years on return, following the allocation system in Romania, he will be returned to semi-open conditions. According to the extant guarantees from the Romanian authorities, he will be guaranteed personal space of only 2m 2.
So far as the Appellant Bagarea is concerned, his sentence being three years, he will initially be detained in closed conditions. In respect of prisoners serving in closed conditions, arriving on transfer from the United Kingdom, the Romanian authorities have guaranteed personal space of 3m 2, conditions therefore in conformity with the minimum standard set by the ECtHR. However, as was set out by Blake J in Florea v Romania [2014] EWHC 4367 (Admin) (" Florea II") at paragraph 11, it is to be anticipated that the Appellant Bagarea will, after a relatively short time, be reallocated to semi-open conditions. It seems not to be in issue but that following such a transfer, he too would be placed in a prison where he is guaranteed only 2m 2 of personal space. The Respondent accepts that is to be anticipated in his case also.
I address below some of the contested detail in these cases, particularly as to the amount of time in and out of their cells, which the Appellants would spend under the semi-open regime in Romania.
The Assurances as to Space in Romanian Prisons
The assurances are simply expressed. Conditions are determined by whether the prisoner is serving in the closed or semi-open systems.
The semi-open system is described as follows:
"The main characteristics of the semi-open regime of enforcement of custodial sentences are as follows:
Detainees have access to walking areas (daily), clubs, sports fields, sports room, church, classrooms and other spaces which are dedicated for the exercise of their rights.
The semi-open regime offers numerous opportunities to detainees, as for example:
• The possibility to walk unaccompanied in areas within the detention facility on routes which are established by the prison management;
• The possibility to organize the spare time they have, under surveillance, in compliance with the schedule as established by the prison management.
Within the semi-open enforcement regime room doors are not locked throughout the day. Detainees have access all day long, based on a schedule established by the prison management, to the walking areas which also include smoking areas. On the hall-ways of detention sections, as well as in walking areas phones are available for the use of detainees, who can make 10 phone calls daily, with a total duration of 60 minutes, as well as research and electronic information kiosks where detainees can check their prison related situation (number of credits, educational activities they were involved in, legal status, etc.).
Convicted persons who serve their sentence in the semi-open regime may work and get involved in educational, cultural, therapeutic, psychological assistance, social assistance, moral and religious activities, schooling and vocational training outside prison, under surveillance.
Within the semi-open regime detainees have the right to 5 visits every month with a maximum duration of 2 hours. Detainees have the right to buy every week in the prison shops, for not more than 3/4 of the value of the minimum gross wages food, fruits, vegetables, mineral water, refreshments, cigarettes and other goods which may be introduced into the prison.
Educational, psychological assistance, social assistance programs and activities involving detainees in the semi-open regime are conducted based on the recommendations in the Individual Plan for Evaluation and Educational and Therapeutic Intervention within groups, in spaces inside and outside the detention facility which remain unlocked during the day, as well as outside the detention facility. Detainees who serve their sentences in the semi-open regime and who leave the detention facility for such purposes are accompanied and monitored outside with unarmed staff.
Detainees who serve their sentences in the semi-open regime have the possibility to spend their spare time outside the detention rooms, all day long. They have to return to their rooms only for having the meals and before the evening roll call. This means that apart from the time dedicated to participation in activities and programs and the exercise of rights, this category of detainees may spend their spare time outside the detention room, in open air, using the detention room only for rest or various administrative and hygiene activities."
The closed system is described as follows:
"We would like to mention some of the characteristics of the closed system for the enforcement of custodial sentences:
The daily schedule of detainees in the closed system includes work, educational, cultural, therapeutic and sports activities, psychological assistance, social assistance, moral and religious activities, schooling and vocational training, healthcare, walking, rest and other activities which are necessary for the stimulation of the interest of detainees in closed system to assume responsibilities. The activities with detainees in the closed system are conducted individually or in groups, under the permanent guard and surveillance of the staff. Detainees in the closed system who for whatever reasons are not used for work, schooling and vocational training activities are involved in activities like walking, education, psychological assistance and social assistance, sports and religious activities for a maximum of 4 hours a day. Detainees who do not work and are not involved in other activities have the right to at least 3 hours of walking every day and detainees who work, are involved in educational activities or psychological assistance and social assistance have the right to at lest one hour of walking every day.
We would like to mention that educational, psychological assistance, social assistance programs and activities are conducted based on the recommendations in the Individual Plan for Evaluation and Educational and Therapeutic Intervention in groups, in spaces inside the detention facility; outside the detention facility detainees in the closed system may get involved in educational and cultural activities, under permanent guard and surveillance, with the approval of the prison manager."
The Romanian authorities then give the following assurance:
"We would like to reiterate the fact that the safeguards offered for extradited persons are based on detention conditions as compared to the minimum individual area (2 square meters in case of the enforcement of the sentence in the open or semi-open regime and 3 square meters in case of the enforcement of the sentence in the closed system). We furthermore would like to mention that all detainees with the Romanian prisons can exercise their legal rights."
The Law
It is helpful to begin by considering the establishment by the Council of Europe of the European...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asen Kotsev v The Sofia District Public Prosecutor's Office (a Bulgarian Judicial Authority)
...information or undertakings as an alternative to the Court allowing a defendant's appeal: see eg Grecu v Cornetu Court (Romania) [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin), [49]–[52], where the Court permitted the Romanian authorities to supply a further undertaking about prison conditions because, among oth......
-
Lorenc Sula v Public Prosecutor of the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal, Greece
...grounds for believing there is a real risk do not exist.” 9 Mursic was considered by this Court in Grecu v Cornetu Court, Romania [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin), [43]–[48]. The Court said: “43. Finally, Mr Knowles took us to the decision of the Divisional Court in Owda v Court of Appeals, Thessa......
-
Paul Cretu v Iasi Tribunal, Romania
...that it will comply with its obligations under Article 4 of the EU Charter and Article 3 ECHR — Grecu v Cornetu Court, Romania [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin) [2017] 4 WLR 139 per Irwin LJ at 56 That does not, however, mean that there is a presumption of non-compliance. It remains the case that ......
-
Bogdan Alexander Adamescu v Bucharest Appeal Court Criminal Division, Romania
...provide within six months a timetable for the implementation of appropriate general measures. 74 In Grecu v Cornetu Court, Romania [2017] EWHC 1427 (Admin), [2017] 4 WLR 139, extradition had been resisted on grounds relating to prison conditions. The respondent submitted, at [34], that th......