QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
|- and -|
|NYIREGYHAZA DISTRICT COURT (HUNGARY)||Respondent|
MISS AMANDA BOSTOCK (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
"Section 12 is also engaged where the requesting state seeks to prosecute the defendant for an offence, the facts of which are so closely related to an offence for which he has already been prosecuted that it would be an abuse of process to prosecute him a second time."
It may, indeed, be that the description of the offence for which the applicant's extradition is sought in Hungary and the offence of which he was convicted here differ in the way clearly identified by District Judge Coleman in her judgment under a heading "Section 12" and, in particular, on internal page 4 of her judgment, now at bundle tab 3, page 18. Nevertheless, if (I stress, if) the sentence which was imposed in Isleworth took account of the facts alleged to have occurred in Hungary, then it may at least be arguable that it would now be an abuse of process for the applicant to be extradited to Hungary and face prosecution in relation to the same facts which were taken into account by the sentencing judge in England when he imposed the sentence of one year's imprisonment.