Gwynge-Biro v Veszprem Megye Court Hungary

Fresh evidence on an extradition appeal should ordinarily be admitted only where there is an adequate explanation for its absence before the District Judge and the evidence is decisive. The court may adopt a more favourable approach where a powerful evidential point is raised and there is a good explanation for the earlier omission.

A human-rights objection based on threats in the requesting state requires cogent evidence that the requested person’s life would be at risk and that the authorities could not protect him. There is a strong presumption that states bound by the ECHR, and members of the European Union, will comply with their Convention obligations to protect prisoners.

The appellant appealed against the decision of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 14 December 2012 ordering his extradition to Hungary under a European Arrest Warrant issued on 30 November 2011 and certified on 2 November 2012.

The extradition offence was assault, for which the appellant had received an 18-month sentence. He relied on alleged threats from a former criminal associate in Hungary. No issue of fact or law had been raised before the District Judge. The central questions were whether the new issue could be raised on appeal and, if so, whether it provided a sufficient basis for refusing extradition under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant had not raised before the District Judge the alleged threats to him and his family, and supplied no explanation for that omission.

2. Fresh evidence on an extradition appeal requires an explanation for why it was unavailable or was not advanced before the District Judge. It must also be decisive. The court may adopt a different approach where a very powerful evidential point is raised and there is a good explanation for the failure to raise it earlier. The court referred to Szombathely City Court and Others v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin) and Krolik and Others v the Judicial Authorities in Poland [2012] EWHC (Admin).

3. The alleged threats were insufficient to establish a human-rights bar to extradition. Threats of violence within the criminal fraternity were a common feature of a criminal lifestyle. The appellant needed cogent evidence that his life would be at risk on return and that the Hungarian authorities could not protect him while he served his sentence.

4. There was no such evidence. A strong presumption applied that signatories to the ECHR and members of the European Union would comply with their Convention obligations to protect prisoners. The application to adjourn was also refused because it appeared to be a deliberate device which would subvert the prompt administration of justice.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision of 14 December 2012 was dismissed.