The High Court ordered the surrender to Romania of Florin Gheorghe and Violeta Corina Gheorghe under European arrest warrants, rejecting their objections based on their departure from Romania, convictions in absentia and family life in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 9 April 2008, Mr Justice Michael Peart said both respondents had been convicted and sentenced in Romania. The warrants stated that Florin Gheorghe received prison terms of eight and 12 years for two swindling offences. Violeta Corina Gheorghe received terms of 12 years and eight years for swindling and two years for forgery of administrative documents. The judgment said the sentences had been reviewed on appeal and confirmed.
The offences concerned the fraudulent sale of a premises in Bucharest between August 1999 and March 2000. The court heard that both respondents left Romania in August 2000 and later settled in Ireland. They said in affidavits that they had left to seek work and a better future for their family, were unaware of criminal accusations, and had not known about their trial dates. They also argued that surrender would interfere with their constitutional and family rights.
The judge rejected their account that they had not fled to avoid justice. He relied on information from Romanian authorities showing that both had made statements to prosecutors in March and April 2000 about the property transaction and that Violeta Gheorghe’s statement referred to a criminal complaint against her and her husband. He said their affidavits denying prior awareness of accusations were “either false or grossly misleading”. The court concluded that their departure was a flight from justice and that the relevant requirements of section 10 of the European Arrest Warrant Act were met.
The court also rejected the objection concerning their convictions in absentia. The warrants stated that both had been notified of the hearing, and the judge said he was entitled to presume notification followed Romanian procedural rules. He further held that Article 522 of the Romanian Code of Penal Procedure provided an opportunity to apply for a retrial after surrender. In his view, the warrants’ description of that law satisfied section 45’s written undertaking requirement.
The judge dismissed the family-rights objection, finding that settlement in Ireland with family members did not prevent surrender under the arrangements between states. He ordered surrender under section 16 of the Act. The judgment records that the order was made; it does not state that either respondent was subsequently surrendered.