Ionut-Dumitru Tudor v Tecuci District Court, Romania

Mr Justice Sweeting: Introduction

1. The Applicant, Ionut-Dumitru Tudor, seeks permission to appeal against the decision of District Judge Minhas, who on 20 January 2025 ordered his extradition to Romania. The order relates to a conviction for aggravated theft, for which the Applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The Arrest Warrant (“AW”) was issued on 26 August 2024 by the Tecuci District Court, Romania, and certified by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) on 27 August 2024. The Applicant was provisionally arrested on 24 August 2024 and has remained in custody since. The District Judge’s Decision

2. The District Judge conducted a comprehensive balancing exercise in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Judge properly identified the strong public interest in upholding international treaty obligations, ensuring that individuals convicted of serious offences serve their sentences, and affording mutual confidence and respect to the Judicial Authority’s processes and sentencing regime. The offence of aggravated theft and the two-year sentence were, she considered, neither minor nor trivial, weighing in favour of extradition.

3. While the Judge was not satisfied to the criminal standard that the Applicant was a fugitive, she nonetheless did not find it credible that he knew nothing of the proceedings until his arrest in 2024. This finding was based upon the Applicant’s acknowledged communication with his mother and brother, and his apparent knowledge of specific details concerning the police investigation. As was conceded in oral submissions his own family had selected the lawyer who represented him at the trial.

4. In relation to the Applicant’s private life in the United Kingdom, the Judge acknowledged that extradition would constitute an interference with his Article 8 rights. There were no dependents in the United Kingdom. She found that the Applicant’s brother, who is here, was not financially dependent or emotionally vulnerable. The Judge also noted the availability of accommodation and support in Romania and concluded that any hardship arising from extradition would not be so grave as to exceed the ordinary consequences of such a measure. The Judge concluded that the Applicant’s five to six years in the UK, his settled status, and his clean record, while factors against extradition, were not weighty enough to outweigh the public interest in his surrender. In addition, the Judge determined that there had been no lengthy delay in the domestic proceedings. The Applicant’s Grounds for Appeal

5. The Applicant’s grounds for appeal, both initial and perfected, centred on a single point: that the District Judge erred in her assessment under Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 , in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Specifically, it was contended that the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to: i) The Applicant’s length of time in the UK and his settled status. ii) His clean record in this jurisdiction. iii) The delay in the investigation and conclusion of the Romanian court proceedings.

6. It was further asserted that the Judge was wrong to consider the Applicant’s knowledge of the proceedings, given her finding that he was not a fugitive. Mrs Justice Eady’s Initial Refusal

7. Mrs Justice Eady, upon paper consideration, refused permission to appeal. She observed that the matters identified by the Applicant had been expressly taken into account by the District Judge. She considered that the District Judge was entitled to have regard to the Applicant’s knowledge of the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the absence of a finding of fugitivity. She concluded that she could not say the District Judge had arguably erred in her assessment or that her overall evaluation was wrong, and therefore, there was no reasonably arguable ground of challenge. Analysis of the Renewal Grounds

8. The renewed application again highlights the Applicant’s residency in the UK since 2018, his open living, and his settled status.

9. A new point raised is the “apparent lack of an effective investigation” in relation to the Applicant’s involvement in the offence, arguing that this factor, in combination with others, ought to render extradition disproportionate. The general principle, as established in Georgescu v Romania [2025] EWHC 864 (Admin) , is that it is the effect of any delay on Article 8 rights, rather than the delay itself, that is relevant, unless there were extraordinary reasons such as discrimination or intentional heel-dragging. There has been no such suggestion in this case.

10. It was nevertheless argued that the six-year delay since the offence was committed was not given sufficient weight and that the District Judge should have sought information about the causes of this delay, and why for example, an accusation warrant had not been issued. As the Respondent submitted, it was not incumbent upon the Judicial Authority to proceed by way of an accusation warrant and although there was evidence that his mother had disclosed that he was in the United Kingdom no mention was made of his address. More significantly however, the District Judge explicitly found that “there have not been lengthy delay in the domestic proceedings”. This is not inconsistent with the fact that proceedings commenced in January 2019, a final conviction was reached by May 2024, and the AW was promptly issued in August 2024. Given this factual finding, it is difficult to see how this ground could succeed.

11. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23 , made clear that cases where Article 8 defeats the public interest in extradition will be “rare”, and it is “most unlikely” for interference with private life to be sufficient. A successful challenge will require evidence of an “exceptionally severe impact on family life”. The Applicant’s submissions do not establish such an exceptional severity in relation to his family life. Conclusion

12. Having reviewed the District Judge’s Judgment, Mrs Justice Eady’s refusal, and the Applicant’s grounds for renewal, I find no basis on which it could be concluded that the District Judge misapplied well-established legal principles, made an unreasonable finding of fact, failed to consider a relevant factor, or reached a conclusion that was irrational or perverse (see Belbin v Regional Court of Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin) at [66]). The Judge diligently weighed the various factors, acknowledging the Applicant’s private life in the UK whilst concurrently giving due regard to the strong public interest in extradition.

13. I conclude that the overall evaluation made by the District Judge was not arguably wrong, and there is no reasonably arguable ground for appeal. The Applicant’s arguments amount to an attempt to have this Court re-evaluate the weight given to various factors, rather than demonstrating a legal error or an irrational conclusion, which is not the function of an appellate review in these circumstances, (see Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) ).

14. For these reasons, I am satisfied that permission to appeal must be refused. END