Extradition finally refused following 5 years’ litigation and 5 judgments
Mr Iancu’s extradition was first sought pursuant to an extradition request from Romania issued on 14 August 2019. It sought to enforce a sentence of 2 years and 1 months’ imprisonment arising from 6 separate convictions.
On 16 December 2020, District Judge Hamilton discharged Mr Iancu on the basis that the assurance designed to safeguard against inhuman prison conditions was inadequate, and Judge Hamilton refused to admit a further assurance due to the lateness of service. By agreement with the parties, Judge Hamilton did not deal with a challenge that extradition should be refused as Mr Iancu was not entitled to a retrial.
On 29 April 2021, Chamberlain J dismissed an appeal by the Romanian authorities. Chamberlain J found that Judge Hamilton was correct in his assessment that the assurance was inadequate, and that his refusal to admit an assurance served late was within his case management discretion: judgment here.
On 8 November 2021, the Romanian authorities issued a further extradition request with an “enhanced” assurance. Mr Iancu represented himself. On 22 April 2022, District Judge Snow found that the re-issued extradition request was an “attempt to circumvent [Judge Hamilton’s] enforcement of his directions”. Judge Snow stayed the proceedings as an abuse of the Court’s process.
On 26 May 2023, May J quashed that decision finding that Judge Snow applied the wrong legal test for an abuse of process. May J concluded that “I cannot find that allowing the Romanian authority to avoid the earlier consequences of its failure to comply with DJ Hamilton’s directions gives rise to any unfairness or oppression in [Mr Iancu’s] case”: judgment here.
The matter was remitted to Judge Snow. On 5 September 2023, Judge Snow issued a judgment dismissing further arguments relating to Article 3 ECHR, and ordered extradition. Mr Iancu appealed.
On 24 February 2024, Cavanaugh J granted Mr Iancu leave to rely on the retrial rights challenge first raised before Judge Hamilton. Consideration of leave to appeal was adjourned pending Supreme Court litigation on the retrial rights issue. On 14 June 2024, Mould J granted Mr Iancu leave to appeal on the retrial rights issue. In October 2024, the day before the substantive appeal hearing, McGowan J entered a consent order, which allowed the appeal on the retrial rights issue, and quashed the order for extradition.
Mr Iancu was represented by Graeme Hall who was instructed by Gitana Megvine of Taylor Rose Solicitors.
