AC-2024-LON-002640 - [2025] EWHC 2702 (Admin)

The appellant’s behaviour viewed as a whole runs contrary with a desire to participate in the initiated proceedings. Once he knew of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the charges, he disengaged from proceedings in Romania. There is strong evidence to safely infer that the appellant had the necessary evasive intention for Limb 2. The Judge drew that inference; I also find it a proper inference to draw.

I test my conclusion by reference to the decision of the Luxembourg Cout in IR (2022) C-569/20 (judgment 19 May 2022) (“IR”), referenced in Bertino at para 39.In IR, the court examined the article 6 implications of trials in absence with a reference under articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2016/343 which concern the right to be present at trial. The terms are identical for all practical purposes to the AFD and thus have relevance here. The case concerned an accused tried in his absence for tax evasion in Bulgaria. At para 48 the court said:

“It is only where it is apparent from precise and objective indicia that the person concerned, while having been officially informed that he or she is accused of having committed a criminal offence, and therefore aware that he or she is going to be brought to trial, takes deliberate steps to avoid receiving officially the information regarding the date and place of the trial that the person may, … , be deemed to have been informed of the trial and to have voluntarily and unequivocally foregone exercise of the right to be present at it.”

I have no hesitation in concluding that Limb 2 has been proved by the respondent. The Judge was not wrong in her conclusion on intention to evade.