Romanian extradition refused: years of culpable delay renders extradition oppressive and a disproportionate interference with his right to private life

The extradition of a Romanian man, represented by Malcolm Hawkes, to serve 3½ years imprisonment for historic offences of theft, assault and trespass has been refused in the light of the extraordinary and culpable delay since the case was last before the courts. Now aged 41, the offences were committed in 2002 and 2004 when he was just 17 and 19 years old respectively.

He was first arrested in 2015 and discharged in first instance proceedings; a prosecution appeal against that discharge was dismissed on s. 2 grounds in the case of Edutanu & others v Romania [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin). Notwithstanding the recognition in that judgment that the s.2 defects in the warrant could well be corrected and the court even spelled out what needed to be done to perfect it, the Romanian judicial authorities did not reissue the warrant until 2023. Even so, it was not certified by the NCA until 29 April 2025.

While the man was found to have been a fugitive in the 2015 proceedings, he had remained in the UK ever since the final decision in 2016; he could not possibly be considered to be a fugitive now. It was argued that applying the ‘Fordham test’ in Makowksa v Poland [2020] EWHC 2371 on fugitivity – locational dynamism, informational deficit and intended consequential elusiveness – yielded only one result. The district judge agreed and held that his extradition would now be oppressive, within the meaning of s. 14 EA 2003.

His extradition was also barred pursuant to Article 8. Although he was not married and had no children, the man had painstakingly established a very successful construction business, with 45 subcontractors who were dependent upon him for their income. He was of impeccable character in the UK and was fully registered with indefinite leave to remain.

It was submitted, and the judge agreed that the extradition of such a person in 2025 for offences committed in 2002-2004 would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to private life, pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention.

In Romania v Pascariu Malcolm was instructed by Mihaela Pădure and Mihai Luchici of Forest & Co Solicitors.