England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		12 October 2012

1. MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: The extradition of the appellant is sought by the appropriate judicial authority in Romania. A European Arrest Warrant was issued on 14 September 2011 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 14 November 2011. The European Arrest Warrant is a "conviction warrant" requesting the appellant's surrender in order to impose a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment in relation to an offence of theft committed on 11 September 2009.
2. The appellant has confirmed to me during the course of his oral submissions that he accepts that he was convicted and sentenced as I have just described in Romania. His wish is to avoid serving that sentence in Romania. In effect, he wishes to serve his sentence in this country because he is fearful that if he is returned to Romania to serve his sentence he will be the subject of physical and/or psychological abuse.
3. These issues were considered very carefully by the deputy senior district judge, Judge Daphne Wickham, when she considered the extradition request at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 23 July 2012. Having set out the relevant history, she dealt with the issue of the appellant's fear of inhumane treatment at the hands of persons in Romania, should he be returned to serve his sentence in that country, in the following paragraphs her written judgment:

"This court cannot underestimate the assiduity of Mr Atlee for the defence. Papers have been retrieved from Strasbourg but they do not assist the defendant in his Article 3 submission. This court refused a defence application that under Article 15(2) of the Council Framework Decision it should request supplementary information about the defendant's complaints. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to make the decision on surrender.

The defendant's evidence, when recalled, was that of a complaint made on 25 October 2006 when he was then in custody in the Tirgu Mures Prison. At the time he was in isolation in a separate section of the prison but managed to meet with a named individual who came from the medical section and who prepared a written complaint for the defendant. Information was exchanged in the exercise yard where the defendant was separated by a fence and could not be seen by the occupants of the cells. He had understood that this person had posted this complaint on his behalf. This appears not now to be the case.

This court is prepared to accept that this defendant was endeavouring to make a complaint about his treatment in the prison when he was not segregated. The defendant agrees that in 2006 when he was put into a segregation or isolation block that there was no incidents of ill-treatment.

On this evidence this court must reject the Article 3 submission. There must be a presumption of the safeguards that are expected in any prison estate of the Member States. As with vulnerable prisoners within UK prisons there are provisions for separation and protection. It is clear from the defendant's own evidence that in 2006 he was, ultimately, being afforded those protections. There is no evidence that would indicate any diminution in this standard in the last 6 years."

4. In my judgment, as is submitted by Mr Hearn on behalf of the Judicial Authority, there is no clear and cogent evidence before this court to rebut the presumption that the Romanian authorities would provide adequate protection to the appellant should he be extradited. In my judgment, the decision of the deputy senior district judge was obviously correct on the material before her, and no material has been put to me which makes it justifiable for me to reach any different conclusion from that which she reached. In my judgment, there is no proper basis for concluding that extradition would unjustifiably infringe the appellant's Article 3 rights under the European Convention.
5. Further, in my judgment, it would be an abuse of process of this court to either delay the appeal or act in some other way which simply allowed the appellant to serve a sentence in the UK as opposed to Romania and there is no suggestion that the Romanian authorities, for example, would be willing to co-operate in such a solution.
6. Accordingly, in my judgment, this appeal falls to be dismissed. There is no proper basis for concluding that extradition would infringe the appellant's human rights and there is no other reason upon which I could properly allow this appeal.