Case Study: Extradition Refused – Delay and Private Life Grounds Prevail

Our client faced extradition to Romania to serve a custodial sentence of 3 years and 6 months for six alleged offences, including burglary, criminal trespass, assault and bribery-related conduct. The matters dated back over two decades, to a time when he was aged between 17 and 19.

A previous extradition request had already been dismissed in 2016. Despite this, a new warrant was issued in 2023 and only certified by the UK authorities in 2025, resulting in a significant and unexplained lapse of time.

At Westminster Magistrates’ Court, we advanced a carefully structured challenge based on delay and human rights grounds.

We submitted that the prolonged and culpable delay attributable to the requesting state, together with the passage of time, rendered extradition oppressive within the meaning of section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. By the time of the renewed proceedings, more than 20 years had passed since the alleged offences.

In parallel, we demonstrated that extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with our client’s right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Over the intervening years, he had established a stable and law-abiding life in the United Kingdom, including building a successful construction business and maintaining a strong professional reputation.

The court accepted these submissions and ordered his discharge.

This matter was conducted in collaboration with Malcolm Hawkes of Doughty Street Chambers, with Mihaela Pădure and Mihai Luchici of Forest & Co providing strategic direction throughout.

Key Insight

This case illustrates that extradition is not automatic. Where there has been substantial delay, and where an individual has built a settled and productive life, the court will carefully assess whether extradition remains fair, proportionate and legally justified.