AC-2024-LON-002099 - [2025] EWHC 1980 (Admin)

In her detailed and balanced judgment, the Judge carefully sets out the evidence given by the appellant at paras 21-33.

He came to the UK on 20 July 2019 with a friend and works as a contractor in construction. He has friends, a job and stable accommodation and a girlfriend who lives in Austria. He stated that he thought his father would withdraw the complaint and does not recall signing anything about needing to provide an address. He did not choose a lawyer. The Judge proceeds to provide her analysis at paras 44 to 52:

“44.

… Notwithstanding that I do not accept the Requested Person’s account in respect of fugitivity, in respect of his personal circumstances in the UK, I accept that he was telling the truth. I accept that he came to the UK in 2019, and since then has built a life for himself which includes employment, accommodation and a friendship circle. I accept that he has no other convictions.

45.

The Requested Person therefore has a private life to the extent set out above. Extradition will, of course, interfere with that private and family life. The interference is lawful and also necessary in a democratic society for the UK to honour its international treaty obligations. The test is whether the interference is outweighed by the public interest in extradition.

46.

I start the balancing exercise by noting that the Requested Person is a fugitive; he built up his life in the UK knowing that he was placing himself beyond the reach of the legal process in Romania. He was therefore aware that his life in the UK may be interrupted. As per Celinski, where a Requested Person is a fugitive from justice, very strong counter-balancing factors would need to exist before extradition could be regarded as disproportionate. I have that principle in mind when considering the Requested Person’s private life.

47.

If extradited, the Requested Person would be returning to the country of his birth. He speaks the language. He is somewhat estranged from his family, but he did say there was some contact. His physical and mental health is, at present, satisfactory. There is nothing that would particularly hinder his reintegration into Romanian society, should that become necessary.

48.

The offending is serious, amounting to an assault using a weapon, in a domestic context, and in breach of a court order. Whilst the sentence is not the lengthiest for which extradition has been ordered, it marks the seriousness of the offence.

49.

The delay is as a result of the Requested Person leaving the jurisdiction and failing to inform the authorities of his whereabouts.

50.

I note the strong and continuing important public interest in the UK abiding by its international extradition obligations, the importance of the UK not being perceived as a safe haven for those avoiding justice and the public interest in extradition, including in those who are accused of crimes being tried, and those convicted of offences serving sentences imposed.

51.

Against all that is a relatively modest private life which was, in any event, established when the Requested Person was aware that he could be returned to Romania. There is a brief mention of a behavioural condition, but there has been no evidence confirming a specific diagnosis, or setting out the way in which any such condition affects the Requested Person. In the absence of any such information, I cannot place any great weight on this.

52.

Even taking into account the Requested Person’s age at the time of conviction, the fact that he has no other convictions, and the fact that he has established a life for himself in the UK (in terms of work, accommodation and a friendship circle), this does not begin to approach the ‘very strong counter-balancing factors’ needed.”