AC-2025-LON-000331 - [2025] EWHC 2236 (Admin)

The Applicant seeks to adduce a report from Advocate Axinte Giliola, a Romanian lawyer. The Respondent opposes this application.

The well-established test for the admission of fresh evidence, set out in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin). To be admissible, the Court must be satisfied that:

Having carefully considered the submissions, I do not consider that the evidence meets this test.

First, the evidence does not disclose any new facts or legal issues that were not already known or discoverable at the time of the extradition hearing. The legal framework regarding Romanian appellate procedure was available well before the appeal stage. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to why this information was not adduced earlier, particularly given that the conviction and revocation decisions date from 2019 and 2021 respectively.

Secondly, the report does not establish that the Applicant was absent from a “trial” within the meaning of Section 20(3) of the Act, which is central to the Section 20 argument. The report itself confirms that the Applicant appeared during his initial trial and was legally represented throughout the revocation proceedings. Indeed, it states that the Applicant “sought a rehearing of his case by lodging an appeal against Criminal Judgment No. 123 of April 14, 2021,” and that this appeal was “timely filed on April 23, 2021”.

A change of legal team does justify the late production of evidence and is not, of itself, a sufficient reason to revisit matters that have already been adjudicated, nor does it satisfy the requirement for due diligence.

For these reasons, I refuse the application to adduce fresh evidence.