[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 >> Lupu v Bacau Court Romania [2014] EWHC 4456 (Admin) (28 November 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4456.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4456 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		28 November 2014

1. MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal in relation to bail in respect of a Romanian national whose extradition hearing is due on 19 January 2015. He faces extradition on a conviction EAW to serve a term 2 years 6 months' imprisonment for two offences of bribery. He may or may not have been present at his trial but he was sentenced in May 2012, not long after I am told he came to the United Kingdom. Nonetheless he was aware of the sentence and conviction because he appealed against both, achieving a reduction in his sentence to that which I have referred to.
2. He came to this country, I am told, because his wife could not receive the healthcare treatment that she needed in Romania for a variety of significant medical conditions. Bail has been refused on three occasions by district judges who have been concerned that, notwithstanding the difficulties his wife would face, the appellant is seeking to evade a long sentence. He is, as I point out, facing a conviction EAW to serve a prison sentence. Had he stayed in Romania, he would be in prison in Romania serving his sentence. It requires very strong circumstances for a substantial prison sentence not to be served on a conviction EAW on the basis of article 8 or, as it is said, a prison conditions argument.
3. Mr Gorst, for the appellant, has said all that can possibly be said, drawing attention to family ties in this country, the wife's healthcare needs, the more settled accommodation since April of this year, and the work which the appellant has as a school cleaner, a position which would remain open to him were he to be released on bail.
4. I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for bail. I agree there is too strong a flight risk. This is a man who has come to the United Kingdom, if not principally animated by a desire to avoid serving a prison sentence, which he must have known was on the cards when he left, he knows that it has avoided it, and he desires to avoid it, no doubt because of the discomfort of doing so himself and because of his wife's condition. He would obviously rather not go to prison.
5. The wife's condition has been pressed on me but it is not an argument that I find persuasive for bail purposes, nor one that is obviously a strong one for the purposes for an ultimate article 8 case. There are significant numbers of family members, including siblings and children, in this country, but at different places, and there others in Ireland. That both provides facility for moving around to avoid discovery but also leaves people in place who can provide assistance to his wife. Mr Gorst acknowledges there is an element of an emotional plea about this. The emotional plea can be answered in that way.
6. The prison conditions argument is a matter which may or may not succeed but the fact that he has that possible ground of argument does not, to my mind, mean that he would not find avoiding going to Romania too strong an attraction, notwithstanding the ties that he has. They are, in reality, not well founded and deep, but are one that in many ways counter his desire to remain in his address and to present himself for surrender. This is a man who has come to this country, in part at least I consider, to make sure that he did not serve the sentence he received.
7. This application is dismissed.