Roszas, R (on the application of) v Baranya County Court Hungary

A challenge to a refusal to adjourn extradition proceedings is properly treated as an application for judicial review. An adjournment should not be granted to enable an alleged offender to pursue speculative proceedings in the requesting state where there is no realistic prospect that the European Arrest Warrant will be set aside. Extradition proceedings are subject to a public interest in expedition. Alleged defects in the foreign trial, including proposed new forensic evidence, should ordinarily be raised at the available retrial in the requesting state.

The claimant was wanted by the Baranya County Court in Hungary under a European Arrest Warrant to serve the balance of a sentence imposed in her absence for a drugs offence. She sought further adjournments of proceedings before the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court so that representatives in Hungary could challenge the warrant and pursue a retrial.

The District Judge refused further adjournment and ordered extradition. The claimant challenged that decision, asserting that the conviction was unsafe and that she should be permitted to remain in the United Kingdom pending proceedings in Hungary. The central issue was whether the refusal to adjourn was unreasonable or unlawful.

1. The matter was, in substance, an application for judicial review of the District Judge’s refusal to adjourn, applying the approach identified in Olah v The Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701.
2. The District Judge had acted lawfully and reasonably in refusing any further adjournment. More than two years had passed without material suggesting a realistic prospect that the European Arrest Warrant would be set aside.
3. The information from the Hungarian judicial authority indicated that a retrial following a conviction in absentia required the claimant’s presence in Hungary. Alleged defects in the trial process, including new forensic evidence, could therefore be raised at that retrial after surrender.
4. There was a general public interest in extradition proceedings being conducted expeditiously. That consideration reinforced the conclusion that a further adjournment was unjustified.
5. The court had no basis to interfere with the District Judge’s decision. The appeal was dismissed and permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The warrant had to be executed before any retrial could take place.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge refused a further adjournment and ordered the claimant’s extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the challenge was dismissed and permission to apply for judicial review was refused.