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

The Applicant is sought by the Urziceni District Court, Romania (“the JA”), to serve a sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment for driving without a licence. This sentence arose from the activation of a suspended sentence imposed on 13 June 2019, which became final on 10 July 2019 due to non-appeal. The decision to activate the suspended sentence was made by the Urziceni Trial Court on 14 April 2021, becoming final and binding on 5 January 2022. An Arrest Warrant (“AW”) was issued on 20 September 2024 and certified by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) on 13 October 2024.

The Applicant was arrested on 13 October 2024 and appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court the following day, being released on conditional bail. District Judge Sarah Turnock ordered his extradition to Romania on 29 January 2025.

Initial grounds of appeal were filed on 4 February 2025. Perfected grounds of appeal, served out of time on 11 March 2025, raised grounds under Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”) (Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights, “ECHR”), and a new ground under Section 20 of the Act. The Respondent opposed the admission of the perfected grounds due to their late service.

On 20 May 2025, Mr Justice Bourne refused permission to appeal on paper, concluding that it was not reasonably arguable that the District Judge’s decision in relation to Article 8 ECHR or Section 20 of the Act was wrong. In relation to Section 20, he observed that the Applicant attended his trial and appeal, and that Section 20 is not triggered by non-attendance at a hearing solely related to the execution of an original suspended sentence. The question of extending time for the perfected grounds and allowing the Section 20 point to be taken (it not having been raised at the extradition hearing) was left open for renewal. The point raised by reference to Section 20 was a matter of law which was argued fully before me at the renewal hearing. I gave permission for the perfected grounds to be relied on, so raising the Section 20 point.

The Applicant’s skeleton argument for the permission hearing listed on 21 August 2025 confirmed that the Section 21 Article 8 ECHR ground was no longer maintained. The remaining issue was the Section 20 ground and the admissibility of fresh evidence in relation to it.