Sandru v Government of Romania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ELIAS,MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2879 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/8113/2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 28 October 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2879 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lord Justice Elias
Mr Justice Openshaw
CO/8113/2009
Ms J Evans (instructed by Soods Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr A Watkins (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As Approved)
: The appellant challenges the decision of District Judge Nicholas Evans to order his extradition in accordance with section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
The appellant is subject to a European Arrest Warrant issued from a court in Romanian. It states that he was sentenced in his absence on 27 January 2004 to a term of imprisonment of three years in respect of an offence of what was described as qualified theft. He stole ten chickens from an secured chicken coup from a neighbour. Shortly thereafter he destroyed the birds by throwing them into a river, although he subsequently paid appropriate compensation to the injured party.
On 19 February 2003 he had received in his absence a suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment. However, on 27 January 2004 the Tribunal at Iasi upheld an appeal against sentence pursued by the Prosecuting Magistracy and annulled the suspension term of the sentence. Accordingly, Mr Sandru became subject to a three-year sentence of imprisonment. He was not present at that hearing either. He says he had no knowledge of the appeal, and indeed that this remained the position until he was arrested under the European Arrest Warrant on 26 December 2008. The basis of his appeal is that it would contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if he were now to be extradited.
By section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 it is specifically provided that a person must be discharged if his extradition would be incompatible with his human rights. The judge held that there would be no breach here. It is plain that if the judge was wrong about that, then he would have been obliged to discharge the appellant pursuant to section 27(3) of the Extradition Act.
Article 8 is very well-known and is as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The essential issue raised in this appeal is directed at proportionality, namely that it is said that it is disproportionate to extradite the appellant given the interference with his private life. There is plenty of authority demonstrating how difficult it is for such an argument to succeed. In Jaso v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983, Dyson LJ stated at paragraph 57:
“What is required is that the court should decide whether the interference with a person's right to respect for his private or (as the case may be) family life which would result from his or her extradition is proportionate to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition treaties with other states. It is clear that great weight should be accorded to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition treaties made with other states. Thus, although it is wrong to apply an exceptionality test, in an extradition case there will have to be striking and unusual facts to lead to the conclusion that it is disproportionate to interfere with an extraditee's article 8 rights.”
In Ahsan (R on the application of) v Director Of Public Prosecutions [2008] EWHC 666, Richards LJ stated that the practical reality was that Article 8 would rarely provide a ground for refusing extradition. More recently, in Norris v Government of United States of America [2009] EWHC 995, after an extensive review of the United Kingdom authorities on Article 8 and extradition, Laws LJ said this at paragraph 21:
“In my judgment the learning, here and in Strasbourg, shows that the public interest in giving effect to bilateral extradition arrangements possesses especially pressing force because of its potency (a) in the fight against increasingly globalised crime, (b) in the denial of safe havens for criminals, and (c) in the general benefits of concrete co-operation between States in an important common cause. The gravity of the particular extradition crime may affect the weight to be attached to these factors, but because they are of a strategic or overarching nature, the public interest in extradition will always be very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Challenging the European Arrest Warrant
...failed for similar reasons was Kotwa v Poland [2010] EWHC 1000 (Admin). Sections 11(3)(a) and 12(2)(a)(i). [2008] EWHC 3331 (Admin). [2009] EWHC 2879 (Admin). Para. Paras. 14–15. [2008] EWHC 470. The remark was made at an adjourned hearing and is cited in Rosemary Davidson, 'A sledgehammer ......
-
The Origins Of The Human Rights Act As A Safeguard Against Extradition
...(1997) 25 EHRR CD 67. [2007] EWHC 2983. Para. 57. Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, para. 56. [2009] EWHC 2879 (Admin). Para. Paras. 14–15. Zak v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz [2008] EWHC 470. Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, Decision of February 25, 2010—1 A......