British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Gwynge-Biro v Veszprem Megye Court Hungary [2013] EWHC 247 (Admin) (16 January 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/247.html
Cite as: [2013] EWHC 247 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| GWYNGE-BIRO | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| VESZPREM MEGYE COURT HUNGARY | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr B Isaacs (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE SIMON: I am going to refuse the application to adjourn. It seems to me that there is a danger of this type of application being used in order to subvert the proper administration of justice, which requires that these cases be dealt with promptly, and nor do I regard it as practicable for the adjournment to be made until 2 o'clock or even tomorrow. The matter has been in the list for a while and the likelihood of the matter coming back before an Administrative Court in the near future is slim. In my view this has been a deliberate device and the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of it. That having been said, I grant your professional client his application to come off the record.
- MR STERNBERG: The only other matter I should mention - it may be an application that may not fall sympathetically - is whether your Lordship is willing to consider giving the appellant 14 days with liberty to apply if he wishes to return to court?
- MR ISAACS: I have no further application.
- MR JUSTICE SIMON: This is an appeal brought against the decision of the Westminster Magistrates' Court, made on 14 December 2012, to order the appellant's extradition to Hungary, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 30 November 2011 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 2 November 2012. Although the papers filed in support of the appeal are incomplete, it is clear at least that the extradition offence is one of assault and that the appellant has been sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment.
- The issue raised in the grounds of appeal is that he and his family have been threatened by a criminal in Hungary. This man, a former associate of the appellant in joint criminal enterprises, is said to be dangerous. In the grounds of appeal he is described as a drug abuser and schizophrenic. The appellant says he did not help this man with his defence to a charge, and ran away after he was sentenced for his part in the assault "for a better future to get away from crazy people".
- The grounds could be characterised as a human rights' claim coming within section 21 of the 2003 Act and Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. No issue of fact or law was raised before the District Judge and so the first question on this appeal is whether this issue can be raised now. The second question is whether, if it can be raised, it is a sound basis for not ordering extradition.
- At least, to some extent, these questions are interlinked. If a very powerful evidential point were raised on an appeal and there is a good explanation for why it was not raised before the District Judge, then this court may adopt a different approach to the one it would adopt if the point is legally or factually exiguous and there is no explanation for not raising it at the proper time (see for example, Szombathely City Court and Others v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin) at paragraphs 3, 32 and 35 and Krolik and Others v the Judicial Authorities in Poland [2012] EWHC (Admin) at paragraph 3.
- There must be an explanation as to why the evidence was not made available to the District Judge, and the fresh evidence must be decisive. Here there is no explanation why the evidence, such as it is, was not advanced before the District Judge and it is hardly compelling even now. Threats of violence amongst the criminal fraternity are a common feature of those who engage in the criminal lifestyle, and the appellant would have to present cogent evidence that his life would be at risk and could not be protected by the authorities if he returned to serve his sentence in Hungary. Since there is no evidence, and there is a strong presumption that signatories to the ECHR and members of the European Union will comply with their convention obligations to protect prisoners, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.