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
		19 December 2012

1. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: In this case, Mr Vlas, who is 26, underwent a final criminal judgment in the Cluj-Napoca Court District Court in Romania on 27 December 2009. The offending was burglary which was proved to have taken place between 13 and a 14 January 2006. The original sentence was 5 years', 3 months' imprisonment. The documents indicate that Mr Vlas served part of that sentence, was released and was said to have breached the conditions of his release, leaving 1 year, 6 months' still to be served as a result of the breach. What is sought here is extradition in relation to a conviction, so that he shall serve the outstanding part of the sentence of 1 year, 6 months, not 5 years, 3 months which was the original sentence.
2. The European Arrest Warrant was issued on 26 February this year and certified on 31 July. The appellant was arrested on 17 September and the District Judge had evidence from the arresting officer PC Taylor, who was told by Mr Vlas that he was aware of the conviction and that he was avoiding the sentence, if effect. In answering questions today, in the course of the appeal, Mr Vlas has in essence confirmed that account.
3. On the following day, 18 September, he came before the Westminster Magistrates' Court and District Judge Arbuthnot conducted a hearing. He was represented by the duty solicitor. The duty solicitor, to make things clear, is not a police solicitor, but a member of a panel of solicitors specialising in representing people against the police, not on their behalf. The appellant refused to consent to be extradited to Romania but the matter proceeded by way of an uncontested hearing. That does not mean that Mr Vlas agreed; what it means is that, after discussion between him and the lawyer, the lawyer was unable to put forward any argument as to why he should not be extradited. There was no proper argument to put forward.
4. Mr Vlas did not have the help of an interpreter at that hearing. He has one today. It is clear that his English is really quite good and he is able to comprehend most things that are said. I hope that he will understand these proceedings as clearly as he appears to.
5. On 24 September, the appellant lodged an appeal himself. By that stage he was no longer represented by the duty solicitor. It is clear that he wished to serve his sentence in the United Kingdom so as to remain in touch with his wife and baby daughter, then 9 months of age, and it is really those considerations that he has repeated today.
6. On 2 October, the applicant was ordered to serve a written summary of his arguments by Ouseley J and an interpreter was ordered for the hearing. There was a further order in identical terms on 29 October. It is clear that the appellant did retain solicitors. Kaim Todner were on the record in the period between the extradition hearing and today, but on 2 November, they came off the record and he has been unrepresented since then.
7. There is in my judgment no proper basis for an Article 8 claim which would provide a reason pursuant to section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 to prevent extradition. I have reminded myself of the principles that apply and in particular, given the family life which is undoubtedly persisting here, and the interests of the child involved, I have reminded myself of the remarks of the Supreme Court in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UK SC25 and borne in mind in particular the judgment of Lord Judge who makes it clear that, when considering Article 8 claims where there are dependent children:

"132. (...) it should only be in very rare cases that extradition may properly be avoided if, given the same broadly similar facts, and after making proportionate allowance as we do for the interests of dependent children, the sentencing courts here would nevertheless be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence: any other approach would be inconsistent with the principles of international comity."

What that means in lay language is that the law says, if a similar offence took place in this country, would a similar sentence be passed and activated? The answer on a night time burglary is: it would. The courts in this country would therefore pass a custodial sentence as did the courts in Romania. The courts in this country would pass such a sentence even though it disrupted the family life of the person concerned. For those reasons there is, in my judgment, no good argument against the extradition and therefore the appeal fails. I am afraid you will be extradited.