Voros v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary

For a Part 1 European arrest warrant, the particulars must identify the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and, where relevant, the place of that conduct. The court should assess the warrant fairly and without excessive technicality, allowing for differences between jurisdictions and translations. Dual criminality is assessed by reference to the conduct described in the request, rather than by comparing the legal elements of the foreign offence. A warrant seeking extradition for duplicated offences is invalid to that extent unless the requesting authority elects which offences will be prosecuted. The rule against double jeopardy requires a previous trial.

The appellant was arrested in England under five European arrest warrants issued by Hungarian district courts. A district judge ordered extradition for all thirteen offences covered by the warrants. The appeal challenged the warrants on grounds of insufficient particularity, lack of dual criminality, double jeopardy, abuse of process and invalidity.

The principal issues were whether the warrants adequately described the alleged conduct and its place, whether the conduct satisfied the dual-criminality requirement under the Extradition Act 2003, and whether duplicated accusations made the warrants invalid or rendered extradition oppressive.

1. Particularity. The EAW1 particulars did not identify what Mr Vörös was alleged to have done with the forged authority. They therefore failed to provide particulars of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, and extradition for that offence was prohibited.
2. The EAW2 particulars sufficiently identified the alleged fraud. The victim, the nature of the deception and the resulting loss could fairly be inferred from the warrant.
3. The EAW3 particulars were sufficient. For concealment offences, the relevant place was where the alleged participation in concealment occurred, not necessarily where the finance agreement was made or where the cars were concealed. The alleged effects were felt in Hungary, satisfying the territorial requirement in section 64(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.
4. Dual criminality. Applying the conduct test in Norris, the court considered the conduct described in the warrants. EAW2 disclosed fraud by false representation and obtaining services dishonestly. The EAW3 conduct disclosed theft or obtaining services dishonestly because the finance companies retained proprietary rights or interests in the cars.
5. Duplicated offences. The respondents conceded that two pairs of offences were duplicates. Section 12 did not apply because there had been no previous trial. However, the warrants were not valid accusation warrants for all four duplicated offences while it remained undecided which offences would be prosecuted. Extrinsic evidence was admissible as a last resort because of the exceptional duplication.
6. The appeal was adjourned for the Hungarian authorities to elect which duplicated offences they wished to prosecute. Extradition was permitted for the five EAW3 offences, the second EAW4 offence, and the second and third EAW5 offences. It was prohibited for EAW1. If no election was made, extradition would also be prohibited for the four duplicated offences.

1. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 6 January 2012 District Judge Purdy ordered extradition to Hungary under all five warrants.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The court allowed the appeal in part, quashed extradition for EAW1 and deferred final orders concerning the duplicated offences pending an election by the Hungarian authorities.