AC-2024-LON-004257 - [2025] EWHC 2847 (Admin)

Mr Frunza moved to the United Kingdom in the same year after a serious of offences committed over the period from May 2017 to August 2018 (on his own evidence having been arrested and released by the Romanian police after each offence).

While there is no evidence that his move to the United Kingdom caused the Romanian Court any difficulties in prosecuting him for these offences, it is a relevant factor when considering the delay between August 2018 and September 2021, and whether it can be said to be “unreasonable”.

As the District Judge noted, Mr Frunza’s life in the UK commenced after a spate of criminal offending in Romania (and indeed after he had been arrested by the Romanian police). In those circumstances, the District Judge was entitled to find that Mr Frunza “could not have enjoyed any genuine sense of security during this period.”

The extent of the delay in the period before Mr Frunza was summoned for the offences is unclear. His own evidence is that he was in Romania for 8 months in 2021, and asked for his case to be dealt with by a simplified procedure to speed tings up. However, setting aside the length of any pre-trial process (which would not, on its face, constitute “delay” at all) I am not persuaded that the three-year period between offending and trial can be characterised as unreasonable, particularly given the circumstances in i) and ii) above.

In relation to the 11 month delay after the imposition of sentence before the Warrant was issued, Mr Frunza was a fugitive from justice who, on the District Judge’s findings, took steps to make it more difficult for the Romanian Court to communicate with him. That is of obvious relevance when considering the further period which elapsed until the Warrant was issued.

As the District Judge found, Mr Frunza can have had no genuine sense of security in his life in the UK in the period after 2021.

The mere fact that the Romanian Court had not itself offered an explanation for the timing of either the commencement of criminal process or the issuing of the Warrant does not persuade me that I should conclude that there has been unreasonable delay in respect of those periods. At best for Mr Frunza, there is unexplained delay against a background which would be capable of offering some explanation for it, and given that, the period of delay cannot be said to be excessive.

Further. Mr Frunza has not adduced any evidence of any particular impact of the period of delay upon him or his behaviour. On his own evidence, his daughter lives in Romania and his partner spends six months of each year there.