KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Alin-Ionut STAFI | Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
Judecatoria Roman, ROMANIA | Respondent |
____________________
Hannah Burton instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 14 February 2023
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Yip DBE:
"Ms Burton does not submit that Mr Stafi can be proven to be a fugitive from Romanian justice. I agree there is insufficient evidence to show that he is."
The respondent's fresh evidence
Section 20
"a requested person will be taken to have deliberately absented himself from his trial where the fault was his own conduct in leading him to be unaware or the date and time of his trial."
"The correct enquiry … will be whether, looking at the circumstances of the case overall, it is appropriate to infer that the requested person waived his right to be present at trial."
"In my judgment, deliberately absenting yourself does not necessarily have overtones of deliberately evading justice but the word "deliberately" does involve inquiring into the person's state of mind and it connotes a decision taken in the light of all material information…."
The factual matrix
i) The appellant was informed of the obligation to report a change of address to the three bodies.
ii) At a time when he knew that proceedings were ongoing, he did not inform the authorities of his changed address in deliberate breach of his obligations.
iii) But for that breach, the authorities would have had his United Kingdom address and would not therefore have sent notification of the June 2019 hearing to the Romanian address.
iv) The appellant opened himself to the risk that correspondence would go to the Romanian address and he would not receive notification sent in relation to his criminal matters.
v) In failing to keep the authorities updated as to his address he displayed a manifest lack of diligence during the proceedings and it was his own conduct which led to him being unaware of the hearing in June 2019.
vi) The court can therefore be satisfied that he tacitly and unequivocally waived his right to attend the Sentence 359 hearing such that the test in section 20(3) is satisfied.
"There is nothing in the jurisprudence to suggest that, where a defendant deliberately breaches his obligations to inform the authorities of his change of address so as to prevent the authorities informing him of the date and place of trial, as here, a subsequent trial in his absence is in breach of Article 6. That may be seen as a waiver of the right to attend his trial or as a deliberate decision not to exercise the right to attend his trial."
Ms Burton submitted that this case confirmed that, in principle, failure to notify a change of address is capable of rendering a person deliberately absent.
Conclusions