QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
| CLAUDIU CAMARAS
|- and -
|BAIA MARE LOCAL COURT ROMANIA
Joel Smith (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 22nd June 2016
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY :
Abuse of process
"80. The 2003 Act makes express provision for extradition to be refused when the request is motivated by "extraneous circumstances" that under English law would constitute an abuse of process and for these and human rights issues to be considered as part of the extradition hearing. Where extradition is challenged on grounds, such as abuse of process, which are not dealt with expressly under the Act they should none the less normally be considered within the extradition hearing. The 2003 Act lays down special rules in relation to extradition that are designed to ensure that extradition proceedings are concluded with expedition. This objective will be torpedoed if allegations of abuse of process are pursued outside the statutory regime."
Oppression and s14 Extradition Act
"… I took into account that the offence in respect of which his return was sought were not the most serious. I had regard to the need to respect the decision of a treaty state when I considered the effect upon the RP. I recognised that to order his return would cause the RP and his partner considerable hardship. I did not however consider that the hardship had been made significantly worse by the delay which had happened in this case. He stood to be returned for a much shorter sentence, resulting from the sentences having been consolidated since the time of the first application. Whenever the court was to order the return of the RP it would cause hardship. That was no greater than the personal hardship suffered by any person settled in a committed relation when subject to extradition. I was satisfied that the delay which had occurred had not made it either "unjust" or "oppressive" to order the extradition of the RP."
I agree and would reject this ground of appeal.
"3. The offences had occurred in 2008 and 2009. The RP had moved his life on since the time of these offences. After the discharge of the case in 2014 he had formed an expectation that the matter would not now proceed and that he was free to stay in the UK and get on with his life. He had spent many months on conditional bail and had lived his life with the uncertainty of whether he would have to return to Romania. Both the RP and his partner had suffered the stress of two sets of proceedings with regard to his application."
Lord Justice McCombe