England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		18th May 2010

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This purports to be a statutory appeal in relation to an order of a District Judge for extradition of Mrs Roszas. In fact, the way the appeal was originally drafted on her behalf meant that it was a challenge to the decision of the District Judge not to grant an adjournment. The adjournment had been requested so that Mrs Roszas might have time to have the European Arrest Warrant set aside by her representatives in Hungary. Effectively, therefore, this application is one for judicial review of the decision of the District Judge not to grant the adjournment: Olah v The Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701.
2. The background is that the Baranya County Court in Hungary seeks the extradition of Mrs Roszas in relation to an European Arrest Warrant issued on 1st June 2007. That warrant explains that Mrs Roszas and her husband were jointly prosecuted for the offence said to have occurred in 2003. The offence is pursuant to section 282 of the Hungarian Criminal Code which creates an offence for one "who, without authorization, produces, manufacturers, acquires, possesses, imports or exports narcotic drugs".
3. The warrant explains that the offences arose because Mrs Roszas and her husband lived in a family home, that they planted hemp or marijuana deliberately around the house and that she, in particular, dried the crop in the loft of the house and packed the crop in shrink foils. It is then said that the crop was stored in a vehicle. Details of the amount of marijuana involved is set out in the warrant. The total mass of leaves and crop parts was 5.577 grams net. The plant material was packed in five large welded plastic sacks containing plant parts of gross mass 2,134 grams, 1.923 grams net.
4. Mrs Roszas was sentenced to two years eight months' imprisonment on 24th May 2006. She had served a period on remand and the request in the warrant is that she be returned so that she can serve the remaining 20 months and eight days' imprisonment. It goes without saying that the offence is comparable to the offence in section 6 of our Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
5. Mrs Roszas was convicted in her absence. A subsequent letter from the requesting judicial authority explains that there is a possibility of a rehearing. That letter, dated 10th September 2009, sets out the relevant provision of the Act XIX of 1998 on Criminal Procedure and suggests that, the sentence having been rendered in absentia, there is a possibility of a retrial. At the retrial the person must attend in person for the retrial to be effective. The letter explains that, as a result of this provision in Hungarian law, after Mrs Roszas has surrendered she has a right to a hearing before a court if she can be summoned to the trial. The rights of fair trial are underlined.
6. Mrs Roszas was arrested originally in this country on 9th July 2008. There was an initial hearing on 11th July of that year. She was remanded on conditional bail. The extradition hearing began, although it was adjourned. She failed to surrender and as a result a warrant for her arrest was issued. That warrant was executed over a year later on 7th September 2009 and she attended before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. At the hearing, as I mention, she sought an adjournment so that she could instruct lawyers in Hungary to enable her to have the warrant set aside.
7. The matter next came before the court on 12th October 2009. She applied for a further adjournment because legal aid had not by then been granted. On 19th October, the case came before District Judge Riddle. Mrs Roszas had written a letter to the court and that was before the District Judge. In that letter she requested that she be allowed to serve her sentence in this country:

"I would like to stay here because most of my family is already here and other relatives moving to England within 6 months. We have nearly lived here for 5 years and my child's work here, and my grandson's go to school here [sic]"

She also makes a point about having been convicted pursuant to false documents.

8. Her counsel at that hearing accepted that the contents of the letter did not support any of the bars to extradition. As a result an uncontested extradition hearing took place and her extradition was ordered. She then took proceedings before this court.
9. Before me today, Mrs Roszas has made a number of points. She has reiterated her request to be able to serve her sentence here in this country. Secondly, she asserts that she was wrongly committed in Hungary. First of all, the marijuana had grown around her house in an accidental way. She did not know that the plants which were growing were marijuana plants. The seeds, which she had picked up by the road, had been germinated by birds. She had not committed the offence. She also said that she was wrongly convicted because the forensic expert who gave evidence about the nature of the plant had changed his evidence. At an initial hearing, he had said that the plant material was not marijuana but had subsequently changed his mind. Thirdly, she explained that her daughter in Hungary, and also her husband, had attempted to take proceedings in Hungary to have the warrant set aside. This involved the presentation of further forensic evidence. It was a costly process. There had been a request to have a retrial of the matter, which had been unsuccessful, but there was an ongoing further application for a retrial.
10. In my view, the District Judge was correct to refuse any further adjournments to allow Mrs Roszas to attempt to have the European Arrest Warrant set aside. In reality there has already been a considerable time involved, something over two years, where Mrs Roszas has failed to adduce any material suggesting that there is a realistic prospect that the warrant will be set aside. In relation to the retrial, on its face the provision of the Hungarian law, to which I made reference earlier, requires that Mrs Roszas be in that country if there is to be a retrial.
11. There is the general public interest in extradition proceedings to occur in an expeditious manner. That is another reason that it is impossible for me to consider that the District Judge acted in any way unreasonably or unlawfully in refusing the request for an adjournment.
12. It seems to me that what Mrs Roszas needs do is to, when she returns to Hungary, is to raise these defects which she alleges occurred in the trial process in Hungary at a retrial. I assume that the retrial will consider new forensic evidence, if it is available, and will also consider other matters which she was mentioned to me this morning. However, there is no basis at all on which I can interfere with the decision of the District Judge. So I both dismiss any appeal and refuse any application for permission to apply for judicial review.

Thank you very much.

13. THE CLAIMANT: [Interpreted] There is a request you would hear please? Is it possible?
14. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes.
15. THE CLAIMANT: That part of the retrial -- there is a request that I could -- earlier judgment is suspended and so I can go there as a free person to the retrial. So, for example, if I would be taken as a person in custody to Hungary, it could be that in the meantime, during the trial, I will be made as a free person.
16. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes. I am afraid that is not possible. The warrant has to be executed so that is all there is, I am afraid. Well, thank you very much.
17. MR GRANDISON: I am grateful, my Lord.