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

Using this rubric, it is common ground that Limb 1 is proved. Therefore, I proceed on the basis that the appellant was informed and thus aware that criminal proceedings had been initiated against him and that he knew he had been formally charged. As Mr Joyes recognised, this was now “a Limb 2 case”. However, aspects of the Limb 1 analysis have a wider relevance for Limb 2 and indeed, Ground 2, so I briefly summarise how this conceded position arose.

The Judge found at para 39(ii) of her judgment:

“a decision had been made to initiate criminal proceedings… [which] is sufficiently clear in its terms to satisfy me that a charging decision and an intention to prosecute had been made and that the Requested Person was personally aware of that when he left Romania to come to the UK”

Thus, she found as a fact that the criminal proceedings had been initiated. In the Further Information dated 11 January 2024, the respondent provided evidence that criminal proceedings had been initiated:

“On 10.05.2016, the order for the initiation of criminal proceedings was issued against TOLOll Nicolae-Afredo for committing the offence of theft of trees from the national forest fund and/or committing the offence of theft of trees from the national forest and for committing the offence of unlawful felling of trees from the national forest fund, the offences set out in the warrant.

Mr. TOLOII Nicolae Alfredo was personally informed on l0.05.2016 by the report of the. rights and obligations of the accused by the prosecution authorities that criminal proceedings were initiated against him, he was informed about the fact for which he is being investigated and the legal framework of the offence.”

The evidence of the appellant’s expert Mr Sandru states in terms that on 10 May 2016 “formal charges” were laid against the appellant; he was considered to be a “defendant”. The document has a line which records whether there are “Any other criminal proceedings against you” (emphasis provided). It is left blank in this case, but the implication is that there are criminal proceedings. From all this, there can be no doubt but that the appellant was aware of criminal proceedings against him and the nature of the charges he faced. As Mr Sandru put it, this step “is the act by which the criminal action is formally initiated against a person”.

This understanding is reinforced by the fact that the appellant made substantial admissions to the charges. In his statement filed for these proceedings, he states at para 5 “I do not agree that I am guilty of theft as I had permission from my work to gather wood.” Therefore, it assists, as the Judge did, to examine what he said when speaking to the Romanian police on 10 May 2016. There is a detailed record of his account:

“On 27/09/2014 at approximately 0500 hrs together with Victor Dobre, I was riding a horse- drawn cart, which Victor Dobre had borrowed from Gheorghe Matei, also known as ‘Gogu al lui Mantel’. We were in the possession of a chainsaw of the ‘Micul Padurar’ make, which Victor Dobre had also borrowed from the same person on 26/09/2014, with the excuse he needed it to cut fire wood at his home.

I had agreed with Victor Dobre to go into the woods and cut down and steal trees which we would have subsequently sold for money.

We rode up the forest road that goes from the Scheiu de Jos village to the woods belonging to the Valea Mare Forest District, and after approximately 500 meters, we entered the woods belonging to the Valea Mare Forest District to the right of the road. We kept on going for another 400-500 meters into the woods, and then stopped the cart. We both got off the cart, and I took the chainsaw and cut down 5 (five) trees, to be more exact 2 (two) oak trees and 3 (three) hornbeam trees.

…

Neither Victor Dobre, nor I had any authorizations to cut down trees, and the trees we cut down had not been marked for that purpose by the Forest District. We did this at approximately 0630 hrs, when it was light outside. Victor Dobre told me that he returned the broken chainsaw to Gheorghe Matei, who subsequently sold it to scrap metal.

We did not participate in the reconstruction in the field of our route, as we could not remember the exact place from where we had cut down and stolen the trees.

This is the statement I make with assistance, which I personally sign after having read and agreed that the written facts match the facts I verbally declared.”

Seen in this light, his comments in his statement to this court lack credibility. He told the police that he knew he had no authorisation to fell the trees. He read and signed the written account and confirmed it matched his verbal account. The nature and content of his admissions have relevance for the Limb 2 analysis, which I now turn to. While there is no evidence that the appellant had been informed of the trial date in Romania, the fixing of a trial date and the accused’s awareness of it is not essential to the Bertino test. The focus for Limb 1 is on awareness of criminal proceedings and the charges faced. The respondent has proved these matters to the criminal standard and this is conceded by the appellant for the reasons given.

To recapitulate, the question is whether the appellant intended to evade criminal proceedings in the sense outlined above.