Lupsa v Timis Court: High Court dismisses deliberate absence appeal in Romanian extradition case

The High Court has dismissed an extradition appeal brought by a Romanian national who argued that the District Judge had erred in finding he deliberately absented himself from his trial in Romania. The judgement in Raul Lupsa v Timis Court, Romania [2026] EWHC 1389 (Admin), handed down by Mr Justice Sweeting on 9 June 2026, confirms that deliberate evasion can amount to unequivocal waiver of the right to be present even without a formal warning, where the objective evidence demonstrates knowing and sustained disengagement from proceedings.

Mr Lupsa, subject to a conviction-based European Arrest Warrant issued by the Timis County Court, was sought to serve the outstanding portion of a five-year sentence imposed in March 2022 for supplying MDMA tablets in Romania in December 2019. He had not been personally present at his trial. District Judge Curtis, sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court, ordered his extradition in August 2024 following a nine-day hearing, finding that Mr Lupsa had taken "extreme steps" to avoid the trial process.

The sole ground on which permission to appeal was granted concerned the application of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and, in particular, whether the District Judge had correctly applied the test for deliberate absence in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Bertino v Italy [2024] UKSC 9 and Merticariu v Romania [2024] UKSC 10.

The appellant argued that the District Judge had misapplied Bertino by relying on a subjective credibility assessment rather than applying the objective criminal standard required for unequivocal waiver, and that no formal warning had been given that non-attendance could result in a trial in his absence. He further contended that there was no evidence he had ever mandated his state-appointed lawyer to represent him at first instance, such that Box (d) of the EAW was deficient.

Mr Justice Sweeting rejected each ground. On the core question of deliberate absence, the court found that the factual matrix was in stark contrast to Bertino, where the defendant had no knowledge of any prosecution. Here, Mr Lupsa had been contacted by Romanian investigators via WhatsApp from April 2021, had provided his email address, opened an email containing procedural documents in November 2021, and admitted knowing by early 2022 that he was to be tried. Once proceedings moved towards trial, he ceased all communication with the authorities, failed to update his address, and allowed calls to his provided number to be diverted to an unknown woman who denied knowing him.

The District Judge's finding that Mr Lupsa was "not a convincing or believable witness" was characterised in the judgement as unimpeachable, being reasoned, evidence-based and firmly within his fact-finding discretion. The absence of a formal warning was not fatal in these circumstances. Drawing on Bertino at paragraph 58 and the Luxembourg Court's reasoning in Criminal Proceedings against IR (Case C-569/20), Mr Justice Sweeting held that where a person knows proceedings are active and then deliberately places himself beyond the reach of the authorities, waiver may properly be inferred without an explicit warning. The consequences of non-attendance were reasonably foreseeable from Mr Lupsa's own conduct.

On the mandate point, the court held that Box (d)(3.2) of the EAW clearly stated that Mr Lupsa had been defended by a state-appointed lawyer, with further information identifying her by name. The executing court's function was not to conduct a granular inquiry into whether a mandate had been formally constituted under Romanian procedural law. Applying Merticariu, the EAW contained the necessary Article 4a assurances and there was no ambiguity warranting further investigation. Mr Lupsa's own post-conviction conduct, pursuing an appeal through both his state-appointed lawyer and a privately instructed advocate, was inconsistent with his challenge to the warrant's accuracy.

The appeal was dismissed and the extradition order confirmed.

Raul Lupsa v Timis Court, Romania [2026] EWHC 1389 (Admin). Martin Henley (AM International Solicitors) for the appellant; Amanda Bostock (Crown Prosecution Service, Extradition Unit) for the respondent.