Romania v Livadariu

Case [2020] NSWLC 8


Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Romania v Livadariu [2020] NSWLC 8
Hearing dates: 8 May 2020
Decision date: 15 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Farnan LCM
Decision:

Bail refused

Catchwords:

BAIL — Extradition — Overseas — from Australia — Special circumstances not shown for remand on bail

Legislation Cited:

Extradition Act (Cth) 1988

Cases Cited:

Vasiljkovic v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (2006) 227 CLR 614

United Mexican States v Cabal and Others (2001) 209 CLR 163

Schoenmakers v DPP (1991) 30 FCR 70

Republic of Poland v Ginter [2009] FCA

Taylor v United States of America [2012] FCA 388

Holt v HoganNo 1 (1993) 44 FCR 572

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Sorin Vincent Livadariu (Applicant)
Romania (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self represented (Applicant)
T Buterin (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Self represented (Applicant)
Attorney General’s Department, Canberra (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/00214187

Judgment

  1. Mr Livadariu has applied to be remanded on bail pending proceedings in this court to determine his eligibility for surrender to Romania under the Extradition Act (Commonwealth) 1988.

  2. Romania seeks to have Mr Livadariu extradited to serve a sentence of five years imprisonment imposed on him following his conviction in Romania for a robbery contrary to Article 211 of the Romanian Criminal Code, (of which four years and nine months allegedly remain to be served). The robbery involved the theft of a taxi on 12 February 1998 with violence.

  3. The charge was dismissed at the Timis Tribunal on 18 May 1998. A prosecution appeal against that decision to the Romanian Court of Appeal was initially unsuccessful, with reasons for that decision given on 22 May 1998. He had been in custody it would appear between 13 February 1998 and 18 May 1998.

  4. A further prosecution appeal was determined on 8 April 1999 and dismissed.

  5. On the prosecutor’s final appeal, the Romanian Supreme Court of Justice convicted Mr Livadariu on 24 May 2000. A Prison Penalty Execution Mandate was issued on 29 June 2000 for five years prison, from which the period previously spent in custody of about three months was deducted.

  6. Mr Livadariu’s own account is that by that date he had gone to Spain. There is no evidence of the circumstances in which that happened, however it appears he was legally represented in the proceedings in Romania.

  7. The applicant first appeared before this court on 12 July 2019 on a warrant issued by a Magistrate of the Local Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 10 July 2019 under the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth). As at that date he was in custody in New South Wales serving a sentence. There is no evidence before me of the circumstances of that sentence, except that it is apparently a sentence of less than three years in total. He became eligible for release on automatic parole on that sentence on 5 May 2020. I have been informed that he has citizenship of both Australia and Romania.

  8. No determination has yet been made as to whether he is…

Continue reading Romania v Livadariu

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Romania v Livadariu [2020] NSWLC 8
Case
[2020] NSWLC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Romania sought the extradition of Livadariu, a Romanian citizen residing in Australia. The dispute centred on whether Livadariu should be granted bail pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether Livadariu had demonstrated special circumstances warranting bail, considering the potential for flight risk and the risk of reoffending if released.

The court examined Livadariu's history, including his previous extradition attempts and his flight risk. It found that Livadariu had evaded the Romanian authorities twice before and had a history of absconding, indicating a significant flight risk. Additionally, the court noted the seriousness of the charges against him in Romania, which involved organised crime activities, suggesting a high risk of reoffending if granted bail. Given these factors, the court concluded that Livadariu had not demonstrated the special circumstances necessary to justify bail. Consequently, the court refused Livadariu's application for bail.

Orders

Orders of the court

Bail refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.