Toma Baceanu v Court of Law Segarcea (Romania)

Hearing Dates: 12 February & 24 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 04 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

In Case No. AC-2024-LON-000832, the Appellant appeals from the judgment of District Judge Curtis (“the DJ”) dated 7 March 2024 ordering his extradition to Romania (“Appeal 1”). Permission to appeal was granted on the papers by Bennathan J on 29 July 2024. At the substantive appeal hearing on 12 February 2025, Mr Zalewski indicated that the only ground of appeal pursued was that extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with the rights of the Appellant and his family guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). There is a related application to rely upon fresh evidence, namely the Appellant's proof of evidence dated 12 July 2024 and a report from Dr Rahman, a Consultant Paediatrician, in relation to the Appellant's son. Although submissions on the Article 8 issue were completed at the 12 February 2025 hearing, I was not in a position to give judgment at that stage due to a rather unusual procedural complexity that had arisen.

The Appellant's extradition was sought pursuant to an Arrest Warrant (“AW”) issued by the Court of Law Segarcea, Romania on 24 December 2020 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 28 July 2021. As I explain in more detail below, the AW related to five offences but the DJ's extradition decision only referred to four of these offences. On the face of it, the same issues arose in relation to all five offences and this seemed to have been a simple oversight on the part of the DJ. After discussing the available options with counsel at the 12 February 2025 hearing, I decided the appropriate course was to reserve judgment until the position was regularised in relation to the fifth offence, as currently this offence remained before the Westminster Magistrates' Court (“WMC”). If the DJ ordered extradition in relation to the fifth offence and there was no appeal, I would proceed to determine Appeal 1. If the DJ ordered extradition and there was an appeal to this Court, I reserved consideration of the new appeal to myself, so that I could then proceed to decide all outstanding appeal issues in relation to the AW in one judgment.

Proceedings relating to the fifth offence were duly listed before the DJ, who accepted that he had indeed overlooked the fifth offence in his earlier 7 March 2024 judgment. In a decision dated 19 February 2025, he ordered the Appellant's extradition in respect of the fifth offence, relying on the reasons he had given in his earlier judgment.

The Appellant then appealed the extradition order in respect of the fifth offence, Case No. AC-2025-LON-000557 (“Appeal 2”). The Appellant relied on the earlier Article 8 contention, but also introduced a new ground, namely that the requesting state had failed to satisfy the requirements of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“EA 2003”). By order dated 15 April 2025, I directed that the application for permission in relation to the section 20 ground be adjourned to be considered by me at a “rolled up” hearing, on notice to the Respondent, with the substantive appeal to follow if permission was granted. This appeared to be the most efficient and effective way of addressing the section 20 issue. As the Article 8 ground in Appeal 2 was in the same terms as has been raised in Appeal 1, I granted permission on that ground, indicating that no further submissions were required and that I would address it in my subsequent judgment. I also noted in my order that although the new Grounds of Appeal made reference to all five offences, no application had been made to amend the Perfected Grounds of Appeal (“PGA”) in Appeal 1 to add the section 20 ground.

Thereafter, the Appellant did apply to amend to add the section 20 ground in Appeal 1. By order dated 29 April 2025, I directed that the application to amend be considered at the rolled up hearing that was to be listed in relation to Appeal 2. If the application to amend was granted in Appeal 1, permission to appeal on the section 20 ground would be considered on the same rolled up basis.

By application notice dated 9 May 2025, the Respondent applied to adduce fresh evidence, namely Further Information dated 20 April 2025 in relation to the section 20 ground. The Appellant objected to the introduction of this material and both parties made submissions on this point at the rolled up hearing, which took place on 24 June 2025.

At the outset of the hearing on 24 June 2025, I indicated that I would hear submissions on all of the section 20 related issues de bene esse and then I would address those issues in this reserved judgment.

Mr Baceanu is an appellant in relation to Appeal 1 and an applicant in respect of Appeal 2. In the interests of simplicity, I will refer to him as the Appellant throughout this judgment.

The proceedings in Romania and the extradition request

Box B of the AW describes the decision on which the warrant is based as follows:

“Final and enforceable judicial decision: Criminal Judgment no. 91/07.07.2020 of the Court of Law Segarcea, final on 05.11.2020 by the judgment in a criminal case no. 1363/05.11.2020 of the Court of Appeal Caraiova

Reference: The criminal judgment no. 91/07.07.2020 was rendered by the Court of Law Segarcea in the file no. 586/304/2019 and became final on 05.11.20 by the judgment in a criminal case no. 1363/05.11.2020 of the Court of Appeal Craiova in the file no. 586/304/2019.”

I will refer to the judgment of the Court of Law Segarcea on 7 July 2020 as “the first instance decision” and the judgment of the Court of Appeal Craiova as “the appeal decision”.

Box (E) of the AW indicates it relates to five offences. Placing them in chronological order, they are as follows:

i) On the night of 10/11 November 2012, the Appellant broke into a house and stole a welding machine;

ii) On 17 June 2014, he drove a moped on a public road without possessing a driving licence;

iii) On 21 June 2014, he drove a moped on a public road without possessing a driving licence;

iv) On 21 June 2014, he drove a moped on a public road that was not registered or listed; and

v) On 8 September 2017, he drove a moped on a public road without possessing a driving licence.

As I come on to explain in more detail below, the driving an unregistered / unlisted moped was the offence that was overlooked by the DJ in his original extradition decision. I will adopt the parties' terminology of referring to this as “the fifth offence”.

As the AW explained in Box C, punishment of one year imprisonment was imposed for committing the offence of driving on a public road without possessing a driving licence. This was the last in time offence committed on 8 September 2017. The AW indicated that this offence was committed within the probation term of three years directed in respect of the suspended penalty of two years and five months, imposed in relation to the four earlier offences by the Court of Law Segarcea by criminal judgment no. 234/12.12.2016, which was made final by Mr Baceanu not filing an appeal on 4 January 2017.

The text of Box C continued:

““Based on Article 96(4) Criminal Code related to Article 43(1) Criminal Code it revokes the suspension of the execution of the penalty of 2 years and 5 moths imprisonment imposed through the criminal judgment no. 234/12.12.2016 of the Court of Law Segarcea in the file no. 146/304/2015 and it orders its execution together with the penalty imposed by this one, the defendant is about to serve the penalty of 3 (three) years and 5 (five) months imprisonment.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Box C also indicated that the entire three years and five months sentence of imprisonment remained to be served.

Box D of the AW was ticked to indicate “Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision”.

The DJ's first judgment

The Appellant appeared unrepresented at the first extradition hearing. He was assisted by an interpreter. The DJ refused his application for an adjournment to enable him to instruct legal representatives, on the basis that he had done very little in that regard since instructing the duty solicitor on his arrest. The DJ gave the Appellant further time to consider the bundle of documents before starting the hearing.

At para 4 of his decision, the DJ said that the AW “comprises 4 offences from two Judgments”. He went on to refer to the dwelling burglary and the three occasions when the Appellant had driven within a licence. He made no reference at any point in his judgment to the offence of driving an unregistered moped.

The DJ noted that no issue had been raised as to the validity of the warrant. He was satisfied that the requirements of section 2 EA 2003 were met. He was also satisfied that the requirements of sections 10 and 65 were met and that there were no statutory bars to extradition.

The DJ proceeded to note that the Appellant had been on conditional bail since his arrest on 25 October 2023 and that he had no convictions or cautions in this jurisdiction.

The DJ explained that the issues identified on behalf of the Appellant at the first appearance (when he was represented by...