The High Court has refused to surrender Pitulan Angel to Romania on a European arrest warrant, finding that the prison conditions described by Romanian authorities gave rise to a strong presumption of inhuman or degrading treatment.
In a judgment delivered on 15 December 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns said Romania could not guarantee that Angel would have at least 3m² of personal space for the entire period of detention. The court held that this meant surrender was precluded under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Romania sought Angel’s surrender to serve a composite sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment arising from three driving offences. The warrant concerned driving without a licence. The court record also described earlier offences involving driving without a licence or while the right to drive was suspended.
Romanian authorities said Angel would spend an initial 21 days in quarantine at Rahova penitentiary, with a minimum of 3m² of space. They said he would most likely then be held under a semi-open regime at Bistriţa penitentiary, where the guaranteed minimum was 2m². The authorities described open-cell doors during the day, movement outside the cell and access to activities. After serving one-fifth of the sentence, Angel could be reassessed for a less restrictive open regime, where the guaranteed minimum was 3m².
The court asked Romania to guarantee 3m² throughout detention or provide further information about safeguards in the semi-open regime. In its reply, the issuing authority said it could not give that guarantee or provide further details about likely conditions.
Justice Burns said the time Angel could be held below 3m² was expected to be at least one-fifth of the sentence: about six months if he received no credit for time spent in custody in Northern Ireland, or three to four months if that time was credited. He found that significant out-of-cell movement and the suitability of the facility were mitigating factors, but concluded they did not rebut the presumption of an Article 3 breach.
The judgment rejected Angel’s other objections. The court found sufficient detail in the warrant, correspondence between the Romanian offences and Irish driving offences, no abuse of process arising from the earlier refusal in Northern Ireland, and no established breach of family-life rights. It also dismissed his objection concerning trial in absentia, finding that the requirements of section 45 had been met.
The refusal concerns this warrant at this time. The judge said it was not a permanent bar and Romania could make a fresh application when it could provide the necessary assurances about detention conditions.