Tuba v County Regional Court of Gyor-Monson-Sopron, Hungary

In extradition cases involving suicide risk, oppression depends on the risk of a successful suicide attempt, assessed in light of the person’s mental condition and the treatment and safeguards available. A substantial risk of attempting suicide is insufficient by itself.

For an EU receiving state, the domestic court ordinarily presumes that the state will discharge its responsibilities to protect the requested person. That presumption may be displaced by strong evidence, but concerns about prison conditions may also be addressed through advance disclosure of the person’s medical and supervision needs.

Article 8 requires the individual consequences of extradition to be weighed against the public interest in maintaining an effective extradition system.

The appellant challenged his extradition to Hungary to serve a 14-month sentence imposed after conviction for three fraud offences. The District Judge rejected his challenges, finding that he knew of the proceedings, deliberately absented himself and was a fugitive, and that extradition would not be oppressive or disproportionate.

On appeal, the appellant relied principally on his psychiatric condition, previous suicide attempts and evidence concerning medical treatment and prison conditions in Hungary. The central issues were whether the risk of successful suicide made extradition oppressive, whether the presumption concerning treatment by an EU receiving state had been rebutted, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court rejected the challenge to extradition, subject to a 21-day stay so that an urgent transcript and relevant medical material could be sent to the Hungarian authorities.
2. The relevant question in a suicide-risk case is not simply whether there is a substantial risk that the requested person will attempt suicide. The court must assess whether the risk of a successful attempt, whatever preventative steps are taken, is sufficiently great to make extradition oppressive. The person’s capacity to resist the impulse and whether the condition can be managed with appropriate treatment are material considerations. This assessment may be made independently of the external mechanisms used to prevent an attempt succeeding.
3. The District Judge’s conclusion was properly understood in that way. Although the wording could have expressed the analysis more fully, the finding that the appellant’s condition could be managed with appropriate treatment supported the conclusion that the oppression threshold was not met.
4. There is ordinarily a presumption that an EU receiving state will discharge its responsibilities concerning the requested person’s safety and treatment. Strong evidence is required to rebut it. Reports identifying shortcomings in prison or psychiatric facilities must be assessed in context, including whether the requested person will use the facility concerned and whether specific assurances and advance warnings can address the risks. The evidence concerning Hungary did not rebut the presumption.
5. The appellant’s Article 8 case, including the age and relatively low level of the offences, delay, settled circumstances in the United Kingdom and mental illness, did not collectively outweigh the public interest in an effective extradition system.
6. The dismissal was stayed for 21 days. The parties could provide the Hungarian authorities with material addressing treatment and supervision required to reduce the risk of successful suicide. Either party could apply in writing on 48 hours’ notice concerning the stay.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Snow’s decision was challenged on oppression, treatment and Article 8 grounds. The appeal was dismissed, with a 21-day stay for transmission of medical and supervision information.