Minister for Justice and Equality v Hoamea (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 30th March 2020. The EAW was issued by the Law Court Neamt, Romania, to enforce a sentence of five years and 22 days’ imprisonment imposed on the Respondent on 27th April 2018 and upheld on appeal on 4th December 2018. The entire sentence remained to be served. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 27th July 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 14th June 2021. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent as the person named in the EAW. The Respondent opposed surrender on grounds including sections 37, 38 and 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended). The Court considered prior related proceedings and additional documentation concerning the Respondent’s trial, representation, and prison conditions in Romania.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent should be surrendered pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant under the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
2. Whether the Respondent’s surrender is precluded by section 38 of the Act relating to the correspondence of offences.
3. Whether the Respondent’s surrender is precluded by section 45 of the Act concerning trial in absentia and the adequacy of legal representation.
4. Whether the Respondent’s surrender is precluded by section 37 of the Act due to alleged inhuman or degrading prison conditions violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Section 38 objection: The Respondent initially argued there was no corresponding offence under the law of the State for the illegal tree felling offence.
• Section 45 objection: The Respondent contended that he was not present at the sentencing hearing and that the requirements for surrender under the Act were not met, disputing that he had authorized legal representation at appeal.
• Section 37 objection: The Respondent claimed that prison conditions in Romania would breach his rights under Article 3 ECHR, citing fears of inhuman or degrading treatment and police corruption.
• The Respondent’s solicitor averred that the Respondent was not involved in instructing or empowering any lawyer prior to trial or appeal and only became aware of the trial outcome after the appeal judgment.

Applicant's Arguments

• Section 38: The Applicant identified corresponding offences under the State’s law, including section 27(10) of the Forestry Act 2014 and section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991, which correspond to the illegal tree felling offence.
• Section 45: The Applicant submitted that the Respondent was represented at appeal by a lawyer of his own choice who had a valid mandate, supported by documentation including a signed power of attorney and evidence that the Respondent was informed of his obligations.
• Section 37: The Applicant provided documentation from Romanian authorities detailing prison conditions, quarantine procedures, and measures addressing overcrowding and mistreatment, asserting that conditions comply with Article 3 ECHR standards.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first confirmed the correspondence of offences under section 38 of the Act, accepting that the illegal tree felling offence corresponds to offences under the Forestry Act 2014 and the Criminal Damage Act 1991, and that the attempted murder offence also corresponded to an offence under the State’s law.

Regarding section 45, the Court identified the relevant hearing as the appeal hearing resulting in the 4th December 2018 judgment. It accepted that the Respondent was not present at first instance trial but was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. At appeal, the Court found the Respondent was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing with a valid mandate, supported by documentation. The Court preferred the issuing judicial authority’s documentation over the Respondent’s conflicting assertions, noting the Respondent did not provide evidence to the contrary. The Court concluded that the defence rights were respected and the procedural safeguards intended by section 45 and the Framework Decision were met.

In relation to section 37, the Court examined detailed letters from Romanian penitentiary authorities describing the likely prison conditions, quarantine measures, and regimes under which the Respondent would be detained. The Court acknowledged issues of overcrowding but noted ongoing governmental measures to address these. The Court accepted that the Respondent would be afforded a minimum of three square metres of personal space, which, while less than the ideal four square metres, did not amount to a breach of Article 3 ECHR rights. The Court found no substantial grounds to believe the Respondent would face inhuman or degrading treatment if surrendered. The presumption under section 4A of the Act that the issuing state complies with fundamental rights had not been rebutted.

The Court also noted that a potential objection regarding police corruption was not pursued.

Holding and Implications

The Court ORDERED the surrender of the Respondent to Romania pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The decision directly results in the Respondent’s extradition to serve the sentence imposed by the Romanian courts. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but applied existing statutory provisions and principles to the facts before it, affirming the procedural safeguards and human rights protections embedded in the European Arrest Warrant framework.