The High Court has ordered the surrender of Ioan Anton to Romania for prosecution on allegations of creating an organised crime group and inciting aggravated murder. The order followed the dismissal of his objections under sections 44 and 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The Romanian warrant sought surrender for five offences alleged to be related to a criminal organisation: creating an organised crime group, blackmail, incitement to aggravated murder, incitement to attempted aggravated murder, and incitement to aggravated robbery. The allegations concern offences said to have been committed in Ireland. They remain allegations; the High Court was deciding whether Anton could be surrendered for prosecution, not whether he was guilty.
Anton argued that surrender was barred because the alleged acts took place outside Romania and because detention conditions there could expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment. The court dismissed his section 44 objection for the organised-crime-group and aggravated-murder allegations, applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Minister for Justice and Equality v Pal. Following that reasoning, it refused surrender for the other three alleged offences.
On prison conditions, the court considered reports and submissions about overcrowding and hygiene, as well as information supplied by Romanian authorities in response to its questions. The court gave significant weight to information from Romanian state authorities and was satisfied that Anton would receive at least three square metres of personal space if detained. It considered that, if convicted, he was likely initially to serve a sentence in a maximum-security or closed regime at Mărgineni Prison. Possible later transfers to Tulcea or Poarta Albă were less certain and further in the future.
The judge was not satisfied there were substantial grounds to believe surrender would create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 4 of the EU Charter. The court therefore dismissed the section 37 objection and found that surrender was not prohibited under the 2003 Act.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Paul Burns on 9 May 2022, orders surrender under section 16(1) for the two specified offences. It does not order surrender for the other three offences in the warrant.