Togyer v Czech Republic

In extradition proceedings, a conviction in the person’s absence does not automatically prevent return. The court must consider whether return would be contrary to the interests of justice, having regard to the circumstances of the foreign proceedings and the person’s conduct. An application for discharge based on triviality requires assessment of the offence in its full context. The value of the property is relevant, but so are the offender’s previous convictions and whether the offence was committed while on licence, parole or probation. Proceedings conducted inquisitorially may properly be assessed by reference to their own procedural framework rather than English adversarial standards.

Stefan Togyer applied for habeas corpus under the Extradition Act 1989 after Bow Street Magistrates’ Court committed him on bail pending the Home Secretary’s decision on extradition to the Czech Republic.

He had been convicted in his absence and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. He relied on the absence conviction provisions and on the alleged triviality of the offence. The central issues were whether return would be contrary to the interests of justice and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, return would be unjust or oppressive because the offence was trivial.

1. The application for habeas corpus was dismissed. Neither ground relied upon by the applicant had substance.

2. Under section 6(2) of the Extradition Act 1989, the fact that a conviction was obtained in the person’s absence is not by itself sufficient. The court must consider whether return would be contrary to the interests of justice. The applicant knew of the proceedings, knew of the main hearing, failed to attend and had legal representation appointed on his behalf.

3. The fairness of representation in foreign proceedings must be assessed in their proper procedural context. Czech criminal proceedings were inquisitorial rather than adversarial. A lawyer’s failure to require the victim to attend before conviction might attract criticism by English standards, but the detailed victim statement and the court’s active role meant that the criticism had substantially less force. There was ample evidence capable of justifying the conviction.

4. Under section 11(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 1989, triviality is assessed having regard to all the circumstances. The court proceeded on the assumption that the goods were worth approximately £40, although their value in the Czech Republic might have been greater. The low value did not make the offence trivial in context.

5. The applicant’s previous serious dishonesty convictions, including a ten-year sentence, materially increased the seriousness of the offence. It was also committed while he was on licence. An offence committed abroad while the person is on licence, parole or probation may properly be treated as more serious in the same way as an offence committed in England in those circumstances.

6. The absence of a transcript from the Czech court, which was not a court of record, did not affect the decision because sufficient evidence was available about what had occurred.

The judgment records the applicant’s committal on bail by Bow Street Magistrates’ Court pending the Home Secretary’s extradition decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the habeas corpus application.