AC-2025-LON-000249 - [2025] EWHC 2221 (Admin)

The District Judge conducted a comprehensive balancing exercise in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Judge properly identified the strong public interest in upholding international treaty obligations, ensuring that individuals convicted of serious offences serve their sentences, and affording mutual confidence and respect to the Judicial Authority’s processes and sentencing regime. The offence of aggravated theft and the two-year sentence were, she considered, neither minor nor trivial, weighing in favour of extradition.

While the Judge was not satisfied to the criminal standard that the Applicant was a fugitive, she nonetheless did not find it credible that he knew nothing of the proceedings until his arrest in 2024. This finding was based upon the Applicant’s acknowledged communication with his mother and brother, and his apparent knowledge of specific details concerning the police investigation. As was conceded in oral submissions his own family had selected the lawyer who represented him at the trial.

In relation to the Applicant’s private life in the United Kingdom, the Judge acknowledged that extradition would constitute an interference with his Article 8 rights. There were no dependents in the United Kingdom. She found that the Applicant’s brother, who is here, was not financially dependent or emotionally vulnerable. The Judge also noted the availability of accommodation and support in Romania and concluded that any hardship arising from extradition would not be so grave as to exceed the ordinary consequences of such a measure. The Judge concluded that the Applicant’s five to six years in the UK, his settled status, and his clean record, while factors against extradition, were not weighty enough to outweigh the public interest in his surrender. In addition, the Judge determined that there had been no lengthy delay in the domestic proceedings.