[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Pieknyi v Hunedoara County Court Romania [2009] EWHC 1056 (Admin) (06 April 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/1056.html Cite as: [2009] EWHC 1056 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		6 April 2009

Monday 6 April 2009

MR JUSTICE COLLINS:

1. This is an appeal by Mr Pieknyi, who is a citizen of Romania, against the decision of District Judge Evans whereby he directed that the appellant could be removed to Romania in accordance with a European Arrest Warrant which was issued on 18 July 2007 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 31 March 2008.
2. The appellant was arrested pursuant to the warrant in September 2008. He appeared before the District Judge on 8 and 9 December 2008. The background facts to the issue of the warrant are briefly these. In December 1997, when the appellant was working as a forest ranger, he received a bribe from an individual to enable that individual to cut down more than the permitted number of Christmas trees in a particular forest. In due course the appellant was charged with an offence of corruption and also with cutting down the trees. The former offence was covered in the list by fraud; the latter is the equivalent of an offence of criminal damage.
3. The appellant attended part of his trial, but in due course he decided not to remain. (That at least was the finding of the District Judge on the evidence that was put before him.) In due course, on 24 March 1999, he was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It is thus apparent on the findings of fact (and it is not possible for this court to go behind them; nor does the appellant ask the court to go behind them) that he deliberately absented himself from the latter part of his trial. He is thus to be dealt with as a convicted person and will be returned to serve the three year sentence which has been imposed. There is in Romanian law the possibility of a reconsideration of the sentence and no doubt the appellant will take such steps as he is advised to take to seek to reduce the sentence that otherwise he might have to serve. That, however, is not a matter which can properly be considered on this appeal.
4. The appellant sought to persuade the District Judge to adjourn the matter in order to raise some issues relating to what he might suffer in Romania were he to be returned on the basis that he was afraid that he would be ill-treated to a serious extent so as to breach his human rights under article 3, having regard to the attitude of either some who were State agents or others from whose activities State agents were not able properly to protect him. The District Judge refused to permit an adjournment. He took the view that the appellant had had time to deal with those issues, or at least to raise something which produced a prima facie indication that there was merit in them. There was nothing to persuade him that that was the position.
5. The appellant has sought to raise those matters in the course of his appeal. Indeed, they have formed the only ground of the appeal to this court. It is accepted that there is no other ground upon which he could properly rely.
6. The problem, as Mr Keith realistically recognises, is that there is no material before the court that would enable the court to find that there is a real risk of treatment that would contravene the appellant's human rights were he to be returned to Romania. Mr Keith submits that there are those who have let the appellant down in this respect. Be that as it may, the court has no material before it which would enable it to conclude that there is any merit in the grounds of appeal. In those circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.
7. MR KEITH: My Lord, may I ask for a detailed assessment of the appellant's costs?
8. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes.