Kocsis v Pecs City Court Republic of Hungary

For conduct occurring outside the issuing territory, an offence may qualify for extradition under section 64(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 where no part of the conduct occurred in the United Kingdom, the conduct would amount to an offence punishable by at least 12 months’ imprisonment under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, and it is similarly punishable in the issuing territory. Where conduct is partly committed in the category 1 territory, section 64(2) may also apply. The court may interpret the European Arrest Warrant by reference to its general tenor and the inferences reasonably arising from its description of events. Different offences must be considered separately; a finding that one offence was partly committed in the issuing territory does not establish that another offence was so committed.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Tubbs’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 28 October 2011 for his extradition to Hungary. The European Arrest Warrant sought his extradition for violation of personal freedom for a malicious motive and rape. The claimant argued that the warrant described travel through England and that the statutory requirements for extradition offences were not met. The central issues were the proper interpretation of the warrant and whether sections 64(2) or 64(5) of the Act applied to each offence.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order for extradition to Hungary in respect of both offences was upheld.
2. The court held that the European Arrest Warrant was properly read as describing travel directly from Hungary to the Netherlands. It did not state that the claimant or the victim entered England. The District Judge was entitled to adopt that interpretation.
3. Section 64(2)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 was satisfied for the offence of violation of personal freedom. The claimant took the victim from Hungary to the Netherlands with a view to forcing her into prostitution. That conduct occurred at least partly in Hungary, and no part occurred in the United Kingdom.
4. Section 64(2)(a) was not satisfied for rape. The warrant described no relevant sexual intercourse in Hungary, and transporting the victim from Hungary to the Netherlands did not constitute rape in Hungary.
5. Section 64(5) was satisfied for both offences. The conduct occurred outside Hungary and no part occurred in the United Kingdom. If committed in England, the conduct would constitute offences including false imprisonment, trafficking for sexual exploitation, causing sexual activity without consent, causing or inciting prostitution for gain, and rape. Those offences met the statutory 12-month punishment threshold. It was accepted that section 64(5)(c) was also satisfied.
6. It was unnecessary to determine the submissions concerning section 64(4). Reliance on article 4(7)(b) of the European Framework Decision did not alter the result, since the warrant had been executed and the first offence was partly committed in Hungary.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition to Hungary on 28 October 2011.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 and upheld extradition for both offences.