SZILVIA LENDVAI v VESZPRÉM CITY COURT, HUNGARY

In extradition proceedings, general evidence of social prejudice does not establish substantial grounds for believing that a requested person will be prejudiced within the criminal justice system. A first-instance judge’s adverse factual findings after hearing the appellant should ordinarily be respected on appeal.

A risk of suicide may engage the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but it is not a trump card. The court must consider the receiving state’s Convention obligations and the practical mechanisms available to manage the risk. Where there are no substantial grounds for believing that the receiving state will fail to protect the person’s Article 8 rights, removal may not engage Article 8 at all.

The claimant appealed against a Designated District Judge’s decision of 7 July 2009 ordering her extradition to Hungary under a European Arrest Warrant to face two fraud charges.

She argued that extradition was barred because she might be prejudiced by reason of her Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation. She also relied on Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, principally because expert evidence identified a high risk of suicide on return.

The central issues were whether the District Judge had erred in rejecting the alleged risk of discriminatory treatment and whether extradition would be incompatible with Article 8.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Extraneous considerations. The evidence established significant social prejudice against Roma and, to a lesser extent, lesbians in Hungary. It did not establish substantial grounds for believing that the claimant’s trial, imprisonment or personal liberty would be affected by such prejudice. The experts identified no convincing evidence of discrimination within the Hungarian justice system.
2. Factual findings. The District Judge had rejected the claimant’s account of mistreatment during her earlier imprisonment. That conclusion was reached after hearing her evidence and was entitled to respect. The court followed Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin) and Ogonowski v District Court of Bialystok Poland [2007] EWHC 2445 (Admin). In any event, the alleged treatment fell below the high Article 3 threshold and there was no compelling evidence of an unfair trial.
3. Article 8. Mental health can engage private life. The preservation of mental stability is an important aspect of that right, as explained in Bensaid v United Kingdom [2001] 33 EHRR 10 and recognised in R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27. The claimant had no diagnosed psychiatric condition, but the accepted risk of impulsive self-harm was sufficient, in principle, to engage the Article 8 analysis.
4. In assessing suicide risk, the court must consider mechanisms available to prevent or manage self-harm. The evidence had not addressed the obligations of the Hungarian authorities or the practical steps available to them. That omission was material under J v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 629.
5. There is a rebuttable presumption that a Convention state will comply with its international obligations. The claimant accepted that Hungary would comply with the Convention, and there were no substantial grounds for finding otherwise. Accordingly, her Article 8 right to private life was not interfered with by removal. This approach was supported by R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 23 and R (Yogathas) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 36.
6. Alternatively, any interference would have been proportionate. Suicide risk is capable of engaging Article 8 but is not determinative. The court considered the absence of a recognised psychiatric condition, the lack of objective grounds for the claimant’s fears, the uncertainty surrounding the later self-harm incident, and the absence of evidence that the risk could not be managed. The case was distinguished from Bensaid, Razgar and Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin), and the approach in Miao v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 75 was applied.
7. The District Judge was wrong to doubt, in the face of the expert evidence, that the claimant might attempt suicide. That error did not affect the result because the extradition was nevertheless compatible with Article 8.

The extradition appeal therefore failed. No further order was required concerning the statutory ten-day period for extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Designated District Judge’s decision of 7 July 2009 was dismissed. The extradition order remained in force.