Mircea Georgescu v Constanta Tribunal, Romania
| Judge | Mr Justice Ritchie |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 864 (Admin) |
| Date | 09 April 2025 |
| Counsel | Ben Joyes,Tom Davies |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 864 (Admin)
Case No: AC-LON-001112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 09/04/2025
Before :
MR JUSTICE RITCHIE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MIRCEA GEORGESCU
Claimant
- and -
CONSTANTA TRIBUNAL, ROMANIA
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ben Joyes (instructed by Hollingsworth Edwards) for the Appellant
Tom Davies (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit ) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 1.4.2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on Wednesday 9th April 2025 by
circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National
Archives.
.............................
Approved Judgment:
Georgescu v Constanta Tribunal, Romania
2
Mr Justice Ritchie:
The Parties
1.The Appellant is a Romanian man who is married and has one son. The son is married and
has two small children. They all live in Kent. He was convicted of a crime in Romania in
2018 and fled to the UK before the trial. The Respondent is a Romanian Judicial Authority
who wish to have him extradited from the UK to serve his prison sentence in Romania.
Thus, the Respondent is the requesting judicial authority (RJA).
The Appeal
2.By a notice of appeal dated 3.4.2024 the Appellant seeks to overturn the decision made by
District Judge Leake (the Judge) at Westminster Magistrates Court on 28.3.2024 extraditing
him back to Romania to serve a 2 year sentence for tax evasion. S.26 of the Extradition Act
2003 (the EA03) provides a right to appeal on questions of fact or law. The Appellant was
found by the Judge to have fled Romania to the UK in February 2017 after being charged
with evading tax and making a plea with the police or the RJA in October 2016, whilst he
was in prison for other offences. He was released in December 2016. The Judge found that
he was and is a fugitive (a finding which is not appealed) and so could not rely on S.14 of
the EA03 to avoid extradition on the basis that extradition would be unjust or oppressive.
As Lord Diplock ruled in Kakis v. Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR
779, at pages 782-783:
“Delay in the commencement or conduct of extradition proceedings which
is brought about by the accused himself by fleeing the country, concealing
his whereabouts or evading arrest cannot, in my view, be relied upon as a
ground for holding it to be either unjust or oppressive to return him. Any
difficulties that he may encounter in the conduct of his defence in
consequence of the delay due to such causes are of his own choice and
making. Save in the most exceptional circumstances it would be neither
unjust nor oppressive that he should be required to accept them.”
3.The Appellant seeks to overturn the balancing exercise carried out by the Judge under S.21
of the EA03, which involved consideration of his rights under Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (Art.8). The Judge decided that the factors in favour of
extraditing the Appellant to serve his sentence were heavier than the Art. 8 and other factors
weighing against extradition. The Appellant relies on his accrued human rights in the UK
exemplified by his family life here and he relies on the (1) delay since his offence; and (2)
“culpable and unexplained” delay caused here in the UK since 2017 in issuing an NCA
certificate, which is a necessary step before a foreign convicted national can be arrested
and extradited.
Bundles
4.For the hearing I was provided with an appeal bundle, an authorities bundle, two skeleton
arguments and then two last minute applications and a supplementary bundle.
Approved Judgment:
Georgescu v Constanta Tribunal, Romania
3
The Issues
5.There is really only one issue in this appeal. That related to whether the Judge applied the
wrong test when balancing the factors under S.21 of the EA03and/or excluded delay (or
the effects of the delay) from the balancing exercise. The grounds of appeal were not really
boiled down to that issue but as the hearing progressed that became more apparent.
6.The Appellant submitted that the Judge applied the wrong test. At paras. 51, 96, 97 and 99
the Judge used an “on/off switch” test for the delay factor triggered by his decision that the
Appellant was a fugitive. Whereas the Appellant submits that a “titration test” would have
been the correct one, under which over 5 years of delay, or the effects thereof, should have
been a material and decisive factor weighing in the Appellant’s favour.
7.In response the Respondent submits that delay is only relevant in so far as it creates the
effect of increasing, or enhancing the Appellant’s family life, family roots and ties and
entrenches the Appellant’s Art.8 rights. The Respondent submits that there is no right for a
fugitive to require the Court to enquire into the cause of the delay. Finally, the Respondent
submits that the delay, long though it was, arose from the Appellant fleeing Romania to
avoid serving his soon to come sentence. The cause of the delay, whether it was by the RJA
or, as in this case, the executing judicial authority (EJA), is not relevant. Only the effect is
relevant for the S.21 balancing exercise and the Judge took the effect fully into account.
The approach in this appeal
The right to appeal
8.The EA03 provides:
“S. 26 Appeal against extradition order
(1)If the appropriate judge orders a person’s extradition under this Part, the
person may appeal to the High Court against the order.
(2)….
(3) An appeal under this section—
(a) may be brought on a question of law or fact, but
(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”
Leave to appeal
9.Leave to appeal is required under S.26 of the EA03. To grant leave to appeal the Court has
to determine whether any of the grounds is reasonably arguable, see Rule 50.17(4)(b) of
the Criminal Procedure Rules. Permission was granted by Hill J on 17.9.2024 on the one
ground under Art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
10.The test on appeal
“S. 27 Court’s powers on appeal under section 26
(1) On an appeal under section 26 the High Court may—
(a) allow the appeal;
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