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

The Applicant seeks permission to appeal on the ground that the JA has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 20 of the Act and/or Article 4a of the amended Framework Decision.

Section 20 of the Act is triggered where a person has been convicted in absentia and requires the court to decide whether the person was so convicted. If the person was convicted in absentia, the court then decides if the person “deliberately absented himself from his trial”. If the answer to this is “no”, the judge must then consider whether the person “would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial”. If the answer to this latter question is in the negative, the requested person must be discharged.

The Single Judge, in refusing permission on this ground, stated:

“In respect of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, it is not reasonably arguable that the DJ was wrong to order extradition, because the Applicant attended his trial and appeal and section 20 is not triggered by non-attendance at a hearing which related solely to the execution of his original suspended sentence (see the reference to Ardic, Proceedings concerning (Case C-571/17PPU) EU:C:2017:1026, ECJ in Murin v District Court in Prague, Czech Republic [2018] EWHC 1532 (Admin))”.

The Applicant’s argument on renewal maintains that both the Single Judge and the District were wrong not to interpret the facts in the present case as falling with the line of authority exemplified by Openbaar Ministerie v TadasTupikas C-270/17 PPU, which characterises appeal proceedings in Romania as the relevant “trial resulting in the decision” for the purposes of Article 4a. In support of this argument the Applicant drew attention to the fact that the “guarantee” under Box D3.4 of the AW was initially ticked but then withdrawn. The AW itself, as initially issued, had ticked Box D3.4, indicating that the person named was not personally served with the decision but would be without delay after surrender, and would be expressly informed of their right to a retrial or appeal allowing re-examination of the merits. However, subsequent information from the JA stated that Box D3.4 was ticked by mistake, as the Applicant had already exercised his right to appeal on 23 April 2021; the appeal then being rejected. This communication further stated that the Applicant could no longer request a retrial or file an appeal and had deliberately absented himself from the final sentencing decision.