Anatolie Iurie Buza v Moldova

The Applicant is wanted for extradition to Moldova. In the two months since his arrest on 22.4.26, three judges of Westminster Magistrates Court (WMC) have refused bail applications. A month ago in this Court (21.5.26), Collins Rice J considered the bail merits afresh and refused bail. There can be many moving parts in a bail case. The relevant ones in this case are the increase in offered pre-release security (PRS) from £20,000 to £30,000 whose source is the Applicant’s Italy-based mother (bank statements being available), and the availability his sister’s mortgaged address as a bail address, rather than the Applicant and his partner’s more transient tenancy. DJ Robinson’s view (9.6.26) was that these were not a material change in circumstances whose nature justified a further consideration of bail merits at WMC.

There must be scope for this Court to focus on whether there are material changes in circumstances. Mr Hepburne Scott for the Applicant rightly accepts that to be the position. The system does not provide a right of reconsideration of bail merits afresh by a High Court Judge at an oral hearing, after an earlier consideration of the bail merits by a High Court Judge at an oral hearing. I would not be attracted to the logical implications, taking one key feature, of an increase in PRS effectively triggering such a position. I appreciate that the liberty of the individual is at stake, that cases must turn on their individual facts, that it is a strong thing to send away empty-handed a person whose bail merits would have persuaded a Court, and that there has to be scope for evaluation and ambition by conscientious legal representatives. But the Court must be justified, in a case like this, in evaluating whether there has been a material change in circumstances, viewed in the context of the contours of the case as a whole, and dismissing the application where there has not been. Having done so, I would refuse this application on that basis alone.

However, I have considered the bail merits and heard submissions on them. I will address them. That is what DJ Robinson also did. I see three central topics in this case:

First, what the Applicant is facing. His return to Moldova would be to serve a 3-year prison sentence for rape, and trial for 3 alleged group robberies. That gives a strong incentive to abscond. His upcoming hearing (16.10.26) will determine the merits of his lines of resistance to extradition. I am not in a position to comment on their viability, but in assessing risk I can see scope for the Applicant perceiving fragility in his position.

Second, the circumstances of his leaving Moldova in early 2020. He was interviewed in early 2018 as a suspect in respect of the alleged robberies, and was indicted. He was interviewed in early 2019 as a suspect in relation to the rape. He came to the UK on, he says, 28.2.20. He was Moldova’s international wanted list from 5.3.20. He says nothing had happened since being interviewed, and that he left for a fresh start. But there is nothing to suggest he thought anything was at an end. Indeed, there is evidence that the rape proceedings were going ahead to trial as at 19.12.19, and that his non-attendance at hearings was noted and a search for him was recorded as at 30.1.20. The fact that the international wanted listing was on 5.3.20 also suggests early 2020 was a key phase in the criminal proceedings. The evidence raises significant questions about whether he has once already crossed borders, avoiding responsibility under the Moldovan criminal justice system, for these known, pending and unresolved criminal matters. This is not about a legal definition of fugitive. It is not of course a finding of fact. Nor does it involve the criminal standard. All of that will be for evaluation and consideration at WMC at the October hearing. But it is a broad common sense point for the purposes of bail risk.

Third, the circumstances of the move from Wellingborough to Coventry in February 2026 and the encounter with the authorities. There is evidence that the couple were living in Wellingborough when the police enquired at their address on 9.2.26. There is evidence, which I am told is disputed, that the partner said she was unable to give the Applicant’s mobile number, but agreed to pass on a message. There is evidence that it was discovered by the police (26.2.26) that they had both left, and that the car – seen in the driveway which was in the Applicant’s name – had been sold. It is said by the couple that the relocation an hour away was for the partner’s studies in Birmingham and the Applicant’s work. There is a documented March 2026 start for a course in Birmingham. Coventry is much closer to Birmingham than is Wellingborough. On the evidence, the police were not told that the couple was moving. There is no evidence to support any suggestion that the partner would not have known the Applicant’s mobile phone number. Nor is there any evidence as to why the car was sold when it was. Nor as to what living arrangements had already been made. Nor as to when the Wellingborough tenancy was terminated. I can see no reason why this would not all have been documented or supportable by documents. Insofar as there are documents which could support the assertions that are made, they have not been produced before me. Nor can I accept that that is, on the face of it excusable, given that witness statements making the assertions about the couple’s benign move from Wellingborough have been put before me.

In light of the combination of these features, I have found substantial grounds for believing that the Applicant would abscond and fail to surrender, if released on bail, notwithstanding the bail conditions that I could impose. That is my assessment notwithstanding the combined weight of all of the points made on the Applicant’s behalf, points about settled status, family ties, length of time in the UK, open living here, anchoring relationship, the £30,000 PRS, and the surrender of passports. And so, on this independent basis – which is not in this case a function of an absence of a presumption in favour of bail – the application for bail cannot succeed on its merits. I refuse it.