British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >>
Manea v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1568 (Admin) (24 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1568.html
Cite as:
[2025] EWHC 1568 (Admin)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1568 (Admin) |
|
|
Case No: AC-2024-LON-002416 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
|
|
24/06/2025 |
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE LINDEN
____________________
Between:
|
ADRIAN MANEA
|
Claimant
|
|
- and –
|
|
|
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
|
Defendant
|
|
- and –
|
|
|
CPS EXTRADITION UNIT
|
Interested Party
|
____________________
Ruxandra Moise for the Claimant
The Defendant was not represented and did not appear
Richard Evans (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 17 June 2025
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 24 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Mr Justice Linden :
Introduction
- This is the Claimant's application for permission to claim judicial review. He challenges two Orders:
a. The Order for his extradition dated 7 February 2023, which was made by District Judge Clarke, sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
b. The Order of Lang J dated 27 June 2024, refusing his application to reopen the Order of DJ Clarke and/or to reopen his application for permission to appeal that Order.
- The Claim Form was filed on 11 July 2024. On 23 July 2024, Sheldon J directed a hearing of the Claimant's application for permission to claim judicial review and ordered a stay of the extradition of the Claimant pending the outcome of that hearing.
Background
- It is only necessary to set out the background in brief outline.
- The extradition proceedings which led to the extradition order of 7 February 2023 were not the first such proceedings in which the Claimant had been involved. His extradition was ordered by District Judge Zani on 6 July 2018, to serve sentences of 5 years' and 8 years' imprisonment on 2 separate extradition (conviction) warrants relating to some of the offences which are the subject of the 7 February 2023 Order. The Claimant had resisted extradition on various grounds, all of which DJ Zani rejected, including under sections 10 and 65 Extradition Act 2003 (dual criminality) and under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") in relation to prison conditions in Romania.
- The Claimant appealed DJ Zani's Order. However, before the appeal was determined, a merged sentence of 9 years' imprisonment with 6 years' prohibition of rights was imposed by the Bacau Appeal Court for six offences committed by the Claimant. This became final on 11 December 2018. The Judicial Authority then withdrew the existing arrest warrants, on which the Claimant was duly discharged. A fresh warrant was issued but, on 4 March 2019, DJ Zani ordered the discharge of the Claimant on that warrant on the grounds that it did not comply with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. He, again, rejected the Claimant's argument under Article 3 ECHR.
- The 7 February 2023 Order was based on a conviction warrant which was issued on 14 March 2019 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 15 July 2021. That warrant was based on 2 convictions for 6 offences. The first conviction, on 19 February 2013, was for:
a. Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs ("Offence 1"), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment with 6 months' prohibition of rights;
b. Forgery of administrative documents ("Offence 2"), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 1 year's imprisonment.
- The second conviction, on 20 December 2023, was for:
a. Illegal international risk drug trafficking ("Offence 3"), for which the Claimant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment and 6 years' prohibition of rights;
b. Illegal internal risk and high risk drug trafficking ("Offence 4") for which the Claimant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and 4 years' prohibition of rights;
c. The organisation, management or financing of drug trafficking ("Offence 5") for which the Claimant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment;
d. Establishing a group for drug trafficking/organised crime ("Offence 6") for which the Claimant was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and 2 years' prohibition of rights.
- These offences had all taken place between 2009 and 2010. The Claimant was wanted to serve the merged sentence of 9 years etc referred to above.
- At the hearing before the Westminster Magistrates Court, which took place on 3 January 2023, the Claimant was represented by specialist Counsel – Mr Ben Siefert – who had represented him in the earlier extradition proceedings. The Claimant's grounds for objecting to his extradition were, again, dual criminality in respect of Offences 1, 3 and 4 on the arrest warrant, and that his extradition would be contrary to Article 8 ECHR. No point was taken on Article 3 ECHR because, as DJ Clarke noted at [34] of her judgment, appropriate assurances had been given by the Judicial Authority.
- In her judgment, DJ Clarke examined Offences 1, 3 and 4 carefully and concluded that they did amount to offences under English law. She held that they were equivalent to the offence of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs contrary to sections 4(1) and 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. She also considered the drugs which were the subject of the arrest warrant and held that each was a controlled drug at the time of the Claimant's offending.
- On 10 February 2023, the Claimant appealed to the High Court against DJ Clarke's Order. The grounds of appeal were the same as the grounds of challenge before the Magistrates' Court.
- Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Swift J on 1 August 2023 and by Morris J after a renewal hearing on 5 December 2023. Again, the Claimant was represented in the appeal by specialist, albeit different, Counsel – Mr Martin Henley - up to and including the hearing before Morris J.
- There were then delays in making arrangements for the Claimant's surrender to Romania.
- On 26 June 2024 the Claimant made the application which was considered and rejected by Lang J. This was 2 days before he was due to be extradited. In his application the Claimant argued that the Order for his extradition should be reopened because there had been a new legal precedent which meant that his extradition would be a miscarriage of justice. This was the decision of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division ("CACD") in R v Margiotta [2023] EWCA Crim 759 which, in fact, had been handed down nearly a year earlier on 30 June 2023.
- Lang J pointed out that Margiotta was therefore available to the Claimant prior to the decisions of Swift J and Morris J in the appeal proceedings and yet no point had been taken on it. She also said that she did not consider that the Margiotta decision was decisive in any event.
The present claim
- The present claim for judicial review was filed on 11 July 2024, as I have said. In it, the Claimant argues that the Margiotta decision demonstrates that he had not committed any offence which is recognised by English law, at least so far as Offence 3 is concerned, and that this accounts for 8 years of the 9 year merged sentence. He argues that the fact that Margiotta was not considered by the Westminster Magistrates' Court or the High Court during the appeal from DJ Clarke's Order amounts to a significant error of law and that his 9 year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the relevant offences given the impact of the Margiotta decision. In writing, at least, the Claimant says that his representatives' "oversight" in failing to rely on Margiotta amounted a incompetence of such a degree as to satisfy the test in Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 (Admin) and to be a serious procedural irregularity which rendered the relevant decision(s) unjust. The Claimant also argues that his extradition would be contrary to Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the ECHR.
The hearing before me
- The Claimant has absconded and did not appear at the hearing before me. Instead, he sent Ms Ruxandra Moise who describes herself as his life partner and the mother of his children. It was she who filed the N463 and the N461, together with supporting documentation, on 11 July 2024. She is not legally qualified and the documents which she filed do not suggest that the Claimant had authorised her to conduct the litigation on his behalf. At the beginning of the hearing I told her that I was not willing to hear her without evidence that she was authorised to represent the Claimant and, even with such authorisation, I would have to consider whether to allow her to do so. She told me that she could obtain authorisation and I adjourned the hearing for 15 minutes to give her an opportunity to do so.
- A letter from the Claimant, authorising Ms Moise to represent him, was then provided. I heard arguments as to whether to allow Ms Moise to make submissions. She said that she wished to address the Court for 15-30 minutes and would not be putting forward anything which was new, or relying on additional evidence. Mr Evans objected, principally on the grounds that I should not indulge the Claimant given that his inability to attend court and make submissions himself stemmed from the fact that he had absconded. Ms Moise said that she had made more than one application for the Claimant to attend by CVP but had not had a response.
- I saw the force of Mr Evans' point but, having considered the guidance in Graham v Eltham Conservative and Unionist Club [2013] EWHC 979 (QB), I took the exceptional course of granting Ms Moise's application. This was a case her making short submissions on behalf of her partner on a matter of real importance to their family, rather than a lay representative making a habit of appearing before the courts, whether for reward or otherwise. I also thought it was possible that Ms Moise would be able to assist the Court in relation to the background and I wanted to ensure that the Claimant had been given every opportunity to put his case forward.
- Ms Moise then began reading out the Claimant's "Detailed Statement of Grounds", which I had already read. I therefore invited her to identify points which she wished to emphasise to me, which she did. I also gave Ms Moise an opportunity to reply to Mr Evans' oral submissions. He then put in a Note after the hearing, to which she responded in writing, and I have also taken her response into account in coming to my conclusion.
The Margiotta decision
- In Margiotta the CACD upheld the decision of a Recorder to stay a prosecution on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. The defendants carried on the business of importing and selling cannabis sativa and they were charged with being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of goods, contrary to sections 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and/or controlled drugs contrary to sections 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and being concerned with the supply of cannabis to another contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the 1971 Act. Whilst cannabis is a controlled drug under the 1971 Act, the Recorder held that the material was not a "narcotic drug" for the purposes of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") given that it only contained traces of Delta-9-tetrahydorcannabinol (THC), the psychoactive element of cannabis, which did not exceed 0.2%. Article 34 of the TFEU therefore applied, such that its importation into the United Kingdom was permitted at the material time.
- The CACD held that the Recorder's decision on the application of Article 34 was correct. It also noted that no justification for limiting or prohibiting the importation of this substance had been put forward pursuant to Article 36 TFEU and refused to permit such arguments to be raised for the first time on appeal.
Permission to claim judicial review
- I have no hesitation in refusing permission to claim judicial review.
- Putting aside the fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is not the correct Defendant to this claim and nor is the CPS Extradition Unit correctly identified as an Interested Party, the claim is in any event doomed to failure for a number of reasons. These include that judicial review is not available to challenge the decision of a High Court Judge: see paragraph 6.3.6.1 of the Administrative Court Guide 2024 and In re Racal Communications Limited [1981] AC 374 at 392G. The challenge to the decision of Lang J therefore necessarily fails.
- As far as the challenge to the Order of DJ Clarke is concerned, this is long out of time and there is no good reason to extend time in this case. The decision in Margiotta was available from 30 June 2023 and yet the claim was not brought until 16 months after DJ Clarke's order, and more than a year after the Margiotta decision was handed down. In any event, the appropriate route for challenging the extradition order was by way of an appeal to the High Court. That was a suitable alternative remedy and, indeed, it is the avenue which the Claimant pursued albeit unsuccessfully. It was open to the Claimant, in the context of the appeal proceedings, to take all of the points which he now takes, including any point on Margiotta as I have pointed out. Indeed, Ms Moise told me that the Claimant raised the Margiotta case with his legal representatives when it was promulgated and yet they declined to take the point. She put this down to incompetence but, for the reasons given below, the more likely explanation is that they did not consider that the point was properly arguable.
- In any event, the claim lacks merit for reasons which I will come to.
Should the extradition appeal be reopened?
- From an abundance of caution I have considered the position if the claim for judicial review were to be treated as a second application to reopen the extradition appeal pursuant to Crim PR 50.27 or an application for a hearing in after Lang J had considered the matter on the papers. Reflecting the test in CPR 52.30, Rule 50.27(3)(b) requires a person who applies to reopen a final appeal to give reasons why:
a. it is necessary for the court to reopen [the] decision in order to avoid real injustice,
b. the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the decision, and
c. there is no alternative effective remedy.
- I do not accept that any of these criteria is satisfied in the present case.
- As to the first and the second, there are no exceptional circumstances which make it appropriate to reopen the appeal. Nothing new has arisen since permission to appeal was refused by Morris J. The points other than the point on Margiotta were available to be taken by the Claimant at the time of the hearing before the Magistrates' Court. He relied on Article 8 ECHR and that argument failed. No doubt the other points were not taken because they had no merit. On Article 3, for example, this argument was raised unsuccessfully before DJ Zani and was not raised before DJ Clarke because appropriate assurances had been given which allayed any concerns based on prison conditions. It is too late to raise new arguments now, and there is no reason why the Claimant should be permitted to re-run his earlier arguments. Insofar as circumstances have changed since the appeal, the Claimant cannot seek to take advantage of the fact that he did not surrender after his appeal was dismissed in 2023.
- As far as the Margiotta argument is concerned, the question of dual criminality was a long standing issue in relation to the extradition of the Claimant and the Margiotta point was available to the Claimant at the time of the decisions of both Swift J and Morris J. Yet the point was not taken. Importantly, the argument is also a long way from being decisive for a number of reasons which, in turn, is likely to explain why it was not taken.
a. First, the issue only arises in relation to Offence 3.
b. Second, in any event the Claimant has not shown that Margiotta has any application in this case. The THC content of cannabis sativa may vary and the Claimant has not established that the levels in the product which he was importing were lower than 0.2%. This is effectively conceded by Ms Moise in her post hearing written submissions where she accepts that there is no evidence on this issue, one way or the other. She says that the burden was on the Judicial Authority to show that the cannabis in question had a THC content which was above the requisite threshold, but in my view that would have been so if the issue had been raised in the context of the extradition proceedings. It is also relevant to the exercise of my discretion that had the point been taken, the Judicial Authority would have had an opportunity to address it by the provision of Further Information. Moreover, there is at least some force in Mr Evans' point that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I should proceed on the basis that the Claimant had committed offences under Romanian criminal law and that that law was compliant with EU law – i.e. I should assume that either the THC levels were above the relevant threshold or that Romania would be able to justify prohibiting cannabis with levels of THC below the threshold.
c. Third, even if Margiotta is applicable, it would still have been open to the Judicial Authority and/or the CPS, in the context of an appeal, to raise justification arguments under Article 36 TFEU for criminalising the relevant aspects of the Claimant's behaviour and, in particular, the importation of cannabis sativa, whether or not it contained THC levels below the relevant threshold.
d. Fourth, it is also clear that the Claimant was not simply convicted of importing cannabis sativa. It is apparent from the arrest warrant that the operation involved importing this material and then treating it with synthetic compounds including JWH-18 to create products with enhanced THC content and psychotropic effects, which were then distributed.
e. Fifth, even if the Claimant were to be discharged in relation to Offence 3 or even Offences 1 and 4 on the basis of the Margiotta argument, it would not follow that his extradition should be refused given that there is no issue in relation to Offences 2, 5 and 6 (for which he was sentenced to a total of 13 years' imprisonment). Offences 1 and 4 added a further 11 years to this total. Romania has effective procedures for disaggregation of a sentence where a requested person has been extradited on the basis of some but not all of the offences which contributed to the overall sentence: see Enasoaie v Romania [2021] EWHC 69 (Admin).
- As to the third criterion referred to above, whether there is an alternative remedy, I also consider that if the Claimant wishes to argue that EU law compels the conclusion that he was wrongly convicted of Offence 3 or any of the other offences of which he was convicted, or that his sentence was disproportionate, he should do so in the Romanian Courts. Indeed Ms Moise told me that he was looking into this.
Conclusion
- Accordingly, having considered the matter in the round and for the reasons which I have given I refuse permission to claim judicial review. Insofar as the claim is to be treated as an application to reopen the Claimant's unsuccessful appeal, I also dismiss that application.