The High Court has ordered Radu Iancu’s surrender to Romania to serve a sentence of one year and four months for driving without a licence, forging an official document and using a forged official document.
Mr Justice Paul Burns, in a judgment delivered on 1 June 2020, dismissed Iancu’s objection that surrender would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of Romanian prison conditions. The order was made under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Romania’s information said Iancu would spend 21 days in quarantine at Rahova penitentiary, where no conditions issue was raised. If he appealed, he would most likely be held at Arad prison while the appeal was decided; again, no issue was raised about conditions there. He was then most likely to serve the remaining sentence at Focsani, initially under a semi-open regime and possibly later under an open regime.
The Romanian authority guaranteed minimum personal space, including the bed and related furniture but excluding sanitary facilities, of two square metres in the semi-open regime and three square metres in the open regime. The High Court noted that two square metres in shared accommodation gives rise to a strong presumption of an Article 3 violation.
However, the court considered other conditions described by the Romanian authority. These included natural light and ventilation, individual bedding, regular cleaning, heating, private sanitary facilities, daily access to outdoor areas, and opportunities for work, education and other activities outside the cell. Under the semi-open regime, detainees could spend most of the day outside their rooms. The court also noted the stated entitlement to free medical care and medication.
Iancu relied on a report by Romanian criminal defence lawyer Danut-Ioan, which discussed conditions at several prisons and questioned whether Focsani and a semi-open or open regime were certain. The report raised concerns about overcrowding and other conditions at some facilities. The judge considered its account speculative on whether prior foreign convictions would result in a closed or maximum-security regime, given the formal process required and the short time left to serve.
The judgment said credit would be given for time spent in custody in Northern Ireland and Ireland. At the time of judgment, about six months remained, before any remission. The court concluded that the evidence about movement and activities outside the cell rebutted the presumption of an Article 3 violation. It dismissed the objection, found surrender was not prohibited under Part 3 of the Act, and ordered surrender to Romania. The court did not decide whether Iancu would appeal or receive remission.