KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Alberto-Mohamad CALIN |
Appellant |
|
- and – |
||
Braila Court of Law and Ploiesti Court of Law (ROMANIA) |
Respondent |
____________________
Counsel for the Appellant did not appear.
Hearing dates: 8th May 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Sweeting:
Introduction
Background
"The Requested Person entered the United Kingdom ("the UK") on 21 December 2018, just under two months after he was notified that a criminal prosecution was ordered against him in AW3. The proximity of the two dates is significant. In my judgment, it is powerful evidence that he fled Romania to avoid prosecution and potential punishment. The Requested Person then failed to appear at both trials on 10 November 2020 and 23 November 2020."
The Grounds of Appeal
i) Section 20 EA 2003 – the District Judge was wrong in finding deliberate absence from the underlying convictions for AW3 and AW4.
ii) Section 21 EA 2003 / Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – the District Judge was wrong overall in finding extradition was compatible with Article 8.
iii) Abuse of Process – the District Judge was wrong in his conclusion on the 'broad merits-based test' regarding previous extradition requests.
iv) The grounds relating to section 14 EA 2003 (passage of time) and section 21 EA 2003 / Article 3 ECHR (prison conditions) are no longer pursued.
Discussion
Section 20 – Deliberate Absence
"The Requested Person accepted, in cross examination before me, that he knew there was going to be a trial in respect of AW3, though he claimed not to know the date. In AW4, the Requested Person was "legally summoned". He also accepted, under cross examination, that he knew he was required to tell the Romanian authorities if he changed address. When I asked him to confirm this, he answered: "Yes. Of course". I accept that the test for fugitivity and the test under section 20(3) of the 2003 Act are different but, I nevertheless, am fortified in my view that the Requested Person knew about the trial dates, and the consequences of not attending, because he departed so swiftly after 28 October 2018. This is powerful evidence, in my judgment, of his knowledge. Moreover, the international conviction certificate discloses that the Requested Person has numerous convictions over and above those described in AW3 and AW4. He is no stranger to the Romanian criminal justice system. His experience will have told him that he was required to inform that Judicial Authorities about any change of address, and that he could be convicted and sentenced in his absence. For all these reasons, I am sure, and I find that the Requested Person had actual knowledge of the trial dates in AW3 and AW4 and that he could be convicted if he did not appear."
Section 21 / Article 8 ECHR
Abuse of Process
Conclusion
END