England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		31 January 2012

1. MR JUSTICE MITTING: On 14 February 2011 a conviction European arrest warrant was issued by a judge of Veszprem County Court seeking the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence of 1 year and 2 months' imprisonment imposed for the theft of mobile telephones in May 2006.
2. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 22 May 2011. The appellant was arrested under that warrant on 15 December 2011.
3. A further warrant issued by the same court on the same date, 14 February 2011, sought the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence of 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment imposed for a series of offences of criminal damage, taking a vehicle without the consent of the owner and an attempt to do so, all committed on 22 February 2008.
4. In respect of that offence the appellant was convicted in his absence. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 3 June 2011. The appellant had already been arrested on another European arrest warrant on 30 May 2011.
5. At an extradition hearing at which that warrant and the second of the two to which I have referred was considered by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham on 25 November 2011, the District Judge discharged the warrant upon which he had been arrested but ordered his extradition on the warrant to which I have referred in respect of the offences committed on 22 February 2008.
6. At a separate extradition hearing on 23 January 2011, the same judge ordered the extradition of the appellant on the first of the warrants to which I have referred, that relating to the theft of mobile telephones in May 2006.
7. Three issues were raised on 25 November 2011 and two issues on 23 January 2012. The first is no longer live. It was contended that it was either unjust or oppressive to extradite the appellant on the second warrant because of delay and because he had been convicted in his absence. But the District Judge found that he came to the United Kingdom on 17 March 2008, therefore only 22 days after the commission of the offences, and so had fled justice. That was shorthand for the statutory language that he had deliberately evaded his trial.
8. The two remaining issues arise under Article 3 and Article 8. It is accordingly contended by the appellant that for either or both of those reasons his extradition would infringe his European Convention rights, so that he should be discharged.
9. In his two notices of appeal he has claimed that it would be dangerous for him to return to Hungary for himself and for his wife, and that he should not be returned by reason of his wife's epilepsy for which, as he has shown me today, she is receiving treatment from her general practitioner. He has also put before me today two appointment notes from Dewsbury Hospital, to which I will refer in a moment.
10. As far as his Article 3 claim goes, the District Judge dealt with it in these terms:

"The defendant is concerned that neither he nor his partner can return to Hungary despite the fact that the defendant's father and four siblings aged between 28 and 42 years of age and some with children also live there. The fear of return is said to be caused by one of the victims of the defendant's car crime in February 2008. The man is named Batzs Nagy (whose name does not appear in the particulars set out in the warrant). This man with others, so the defendant alleges, has twice severely assaulted him just before he left Hungary. Nagy was later convicted of assault on the defendant and sent to prison. The defendant left Hungary with the help of a friend in the United Kingdom a man called Josef Badel who has himself now been extradited but is free in Hungary and has made contact with the defendant's father.

The defendant believes that Nagy and his friends continue to seek revenge on him and his family. After he (the defendant) left Hungary in March 2008, his partner was threatened and that was the cause of her coming to the United Kingdom some 2 months later.

It is not clear from the defendant's evidence whether Nagy is currently in prison or not. Equally, there is no corroboration of any kind of the defendant's assertions. I am prepared to accept that the defendant's behaviour in February 2008 has left a number of car owners very aggrieved and that they may continue to seek redress despite 3½ years' passage of time. However, this does not mean that the Hungarian prison estate cannot protect the defendant from cruel and inhuman treatment. The defendant's evidence alone does not reach the very high threshold that engages his Article 3 rights."

11. That judgment and the reasoning supporting it are impeccable. The District Judge was unquestionably right to reject the claim that the Hungarian state, on the evidence, offered an insufficiency of protection to the appellant against violence from non-state actors in or out of prison.
12. The second ground was dealt with briefly by the judge, who observed simply that his partner had been in the United Kingdom for 3½ years and has worked here, and has a healthy child looked after by her.
13. The District Judge may not have been aware that the appellant's wife suffers from epilepsy. I have been given by him today a note from his general practitioner dated 20 July 2011, in which her general practitioner confirms that she is a patient at the surgery suffering from epilepsy for which she is on medication. The epilepsy is under control while on medication. She has an annual review at the surgery for the condition.
14. Nothing in what is said in that note suggests that the removal of her husband to Hungary to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence would create any greater risk for her than would the period that he has spent in detention pending extradition in the United Kingdom.
15. The appellant has also produced to me two letters of appointment from Dewsbury Hospital. The letters do not specify what the purpose of the appointment is. One of them is plainly not an urgent matter because the appointment has been put back from 3 to 24 February. The other is an appointment on 8 February at the dermatology department. None of that material suggests that the appellant's wife is about to receive any serious operative procedure or that she is receiving treatment for a condition other than epilepsy which puts her health at serious risk.
16. Even had this material been before the District Judge, the District Judge would not and could not properly have refused to order the appellant's extradition under these warrants.
17. Accordingly, and for those reasons, these appeals are dismissed.
18. Do you want your letters back, Mr Hegyi?
19. MR HEGYI: Could you just place them in my file, your Lordship?
20. MR JUSTICE MITTING: The file will not be kept by the Administrative Court Office for very long.
21. MR HEGYI: Then, yes, could I have them back?
22. MR JUSTICE MITTING: Yes. (Handed)