The High Court has not yet decided whether Cornel Iacobuta should be surrendered to Romania to serve an eight-year prison sentence. Ms Justice Donnelly sought further information from the Romanian judicial authority about his 2012 trial and his appeal from a 2015 decision, and directed the parties to make further submissions on whether his defence rights were met.
The Minister for Justice and Equality’s application concerns a European Arrest Warrant issued in January 2016. The sentence was imposed in April 2015 and covered four offences: rape, assault and two road traffic offences. The judgment records that the 2015 trial was attended by Iacobuta and that he had a lawyer of his choice. The information before the court did not establish whether he was present, notified or represented by his chosen lawyer at the appeal.
The judge found that the offences met the legal requirements for surrender under section 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. She concluded that the described conduct in the road traffic offences corresponded to offences under Irish law, including duties following an accident. The court rejected Iacobuta’s argument that his account of leaving the accident scene to seek help should determine that assessment; it considered the facts set out in the warrant and additional information.
The court also rejected his objections based on alleged unfairness in the 2015 trial, Romanian prison conditions and his personal and family rights. On prison conditions, the judgment considered Romania’s improvement measures and assurances that he would receive at least three square metres of cell space, including during an initial 21-day period at Rahova prison. It found no sufficient evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The judge also found that surrender would not disproportionately interfere with his personal and family life.
The 2012 proceedings remained unresolved under section 45 of the Act. The Romanian authority’s information described attempts to summon Iacobuta at an address he had given, but the judge found that personal service and actual receipt of official notice had not been established. Information about a possible retrial was unclear: the authority referred to reopening under Romanian law, but the judge was not satisfied that it had clearly guaranteed a retrial in Iacobuta’s circumstances.
The court therefore gave the Romanian authority a further opportunity to clarify the 2012 retrial guarantee and whether the requirements relating to the 2015 appeal had been met. It also required submissions on whether defence rights were respected in the 2012 proceedings. The judgment did not make a final order for surrender.