Ionut-Bogdan Merticariu is subject to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the Romanian Judicial Authority on 7 May 2019. Acting with others, Mr Merticariu entered commercial premises using a key which the group had as employees of the business concerned. Goods valued at around EUR 1,500 were taken but some of these were later returned. Mr Merticariu was convicted and sentenced for the burglary of commercial premises in his absence.
Mr Merticariu was arrested under the EAW on 25 September 2019. Following a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Mr Merticariu's extradition was ordered. The High Court dismissed Mr Merticariu's appeal. Mr Merticariu now seeks permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Mr Merticariu contests his extradition. One of the conditions for a court to make an extradition order under s.20(5) of The Extradition Act 2003 requires the court to be satisfied that the requested person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial. Mr Merticariu argues that this requirement has not been satisfied and that he should be discharged.

The Appellant is subject to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the Italian Public Prosecutor's Office. The warrant is a conviction warrant that was made after the Appellant was convicted of an offence described as child grooming. The Appellant committed the offence in 2015 and was released pending criminal investigations. In 2015 the Appellant signed a document in which he, amongst other matters, elected an address in Italy as the address for correspondence on the matter. The Appellant subsequently moved to the UK. He informed the Italian police that he was moving to the UK but did not provide a UK address. In June 2017, the decision was taken to prosecute the Appellant. The Appellant did not receive the summons to attend the trial and the trial occurred in his absence, with a court-appointed lawyer representing him. The Appellant, in his absence, was convicted and sentenced to serve 1 year in prison, suspended on condition of payment of compensation within 6 months. The Appellant did not pay the compensation required, with the consequence that the custodial sentence was activated and a EAW seeking to enforce the custodial sentence was issued.
The Appellant contests his extradition. The issue at the first instance extradition hearing was whether the Appellant was deliberately absent from the trial in Italy, within the meaning of section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The first instance judge held that he was. The High Court upheld the judge's findings. The Appellant now seeks permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.