Marius-Mihai Nisipeanu v District Court of Dolj, Romania
| Judge | Mr Justice Griffiths |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 385 (Admin) |
| Date | 27 February 2024 |
| Counsel | Martin Henley,Victoria Shehadeh |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 385 (Admin)
Case No: CO/685/2023
AC-2023-LON-000819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 27 February 2024
Before :
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MARIUS-MIHAI NISIPEANU
Appellant
- and -
DISTRICT COURT OF DOLJ, ROMANIA
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Martin Henley (instructed by AM International Solicitors) for the Appellant
Victoria Shehadeh (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service Extradition Unit) for the
Respondent
Hearing date: 13 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
Approved Judgment
Nisipeanu v Romania
Mr Justice Griffiths:
1. This is an appeal against the order of District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Sarah-Jane
Griffiths (“the Judge”) on 17 February 2023 that the appellant be extradited to
Romania under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”).
2. The order for extradition was made in response to a Warrant issued on 20 July 2020
and certified by the National Crime Agency on 26 August 2021 (“the Warrant”). It
was pursuant to an order of the Court of Appeal Craiova which became final on 9 July
2020. The appellant was arrested on 8 September 2022 and appeared before the
Westminster Magistrates Court the following day. He was initially remanded in
custody but on 20 September 2022 he was granted conditional bail and remained on
bail throughout the proceedings.
3. The Warrant was a conviction warrant which requested the appellant to serve a
sentence of 4 years imprisonment, of which 3 years 10 months and 11 days remain to
be served as a result of time initially spent on remand in these proceedings.
4. The Warrant relates to convictions for three offences, of which the third was
discharged by the Judge ordering extradition, because it did not fulfil the dual
criminality test in section 10 and section 65 of the Act.
i) Offence 1: On 28 March 2012 and 2 April 2012, in Craiova, the appellant sold
three amounts of cannabis, namely 0.68g, 0.21g and 0.86g, for the sum of 100
lei, 120 lei, and 100 lei respectively. 100 lei is equivalent to about £17 in
pounds sterling at current exchange rates.
ii) Offence 2: On 23 February 2016 at the appellant’s home address in Craiova,
he had a bottle containing 20ml of methadone, which was found during a
search of his home address.
iii) Offence 3: On 23 February 2016, in Craiova, the appellant stored 1.45g of
vegetal fragments, packed in plastic foil, in which 5F-MDMB-PINACA was
found and 2.73g of AB-CHIMINACA, both of which are psychoactive
substances. Possession of these substances was not illegal under UK law at the
material time, which is why this offence did not fulfil the dual criminality test.
They were not substances scheduled in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the
relevant provisions of the Psychoactive Drugs Act 2016 were not yet in force.
5. The Perfected Grounds of Appeal raise the following issues:
i) Whether the extradition is barred by section 17 of the Act by reason of
specialty, arising out of the fact that a single sentence has been imposed which
includes a sentence for Offence 3, in respect of which extradition has not been
ordered.
ii) Whether the extradition is barred by section 2 of the Act by reason of lack of
particularity.
iii) Whether the Judge was wrong not to refuse extradition in view of the effect of
Article 8 and the autism of the appellant’s son on the balancing exercise. This
includes an issue about whether fresh evidence should be admitted and
MR JUSTICE GRIFFITHS
Approved Judgment
Nisipeanu v Romania
whether the effect of the fresh evidence is that extradition should not be
ordered.
Ground 1 – specialty
6. Section 17 of the Act provides, so far as material, as follows:
“(1) A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of
speciality if (and only if) there are no speciality arrangements with the category 1
territory.
(2) There are speciality arrangements with a category 1 territory if, under the law
of that territory or arrangements made between it and the United Kingdom, a
person who is extradited to the territory from the United Kingdom may be dealt
with in the territory for an offence committed before his extradition only if—
(a) the offence is one falling within subsection (3), or
(b) the condition in subsection (4) is satisfied.
(3) The offences are—
(a) the offence in respect of which the person is extradited;
(b) an extradition offence disclosed by the same facts as that offence;
(c) an extradition offence in respect of which the appropriate judge gives
his consent under section 55 to the person being dealt with;
(d) an offence which is not punishable with imprisonment or another form
of detention;
(e) an offence in respect of which the person will not be detained in
connection with his trial, sentence or appeal;
(f) an offence in respect of which the person waives the right that he would
have (but for this paragraph) not to be dealt with for the offence.
(4) The condition is that the person is given an opportunity to leave the category 1
territory and—
(a) he does not do so before the end of the permitted period, or
(b) if he does so before the end of the permitted period, he returns there.
(5) The permitted period is 45 days starting with the day on which the person
arrives in the category 1 territory.”
7. The appellant argues that the impact of the principle of res judicata under the law of
Romania means that the single sentence for all three offences cannot be reviewed or
disaggregated under Article 598 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure.
Hence, it is argued that the appellant’s specialty rights under section 17 of the Act are
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting