Hamvas v Baranya County Court Hungary

An extradition appeal requires an identifiable and arguable ground showing that removal should not proceed. General concerns about conditions in the requested state do not establish an Article 3 breach without evidence of a real and substantial risk. Similarly, Article 6 concerns require evidence capable of showing that the requested person will not receive a fair trial. Where experienced legal representatives have considered the case and no sustainable argument is advanced, the appeal will be dismissed.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdy’s decision of 16 October 2012 ordering his removal to Hungary to face a murder charge relating to an offence committed in 1998.

Before the District Judge, the appellant relied on Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 submissions relied on expert evidence concerning concerns about aspects of the Hungarian judiciary, but the expert could not say that the appellant would not receive a fair trial. The Article 6 ground was not pursued on appeal. The issue was whether any arguable basis remained for interfering with the removal order.

1. The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.

2. The Article 6 challenge was not pursued. In any event, the expert evidence did not establish that the appellant would be denied a fair trial on the murder charge. General concerns about the treatment of some members of the Hungarian judiciary were insufficient, without more, to establish the required risk.

3. The Article 3 challenge concerned the conditions the appellant would face in Hungary. The District Judge had considered that the submissions lacked real substance. On the material before the High Court, no arguable basis was identified for treating the proposed removal as contrary to Article 3.

4. The appellant had experienced solicitors and counsel. They had considered whether any arguable grounds existed, and counsel appearing on the appeal confirmed that she was unable to advance an argument on the appellant’s behalf. The removal order therefore stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s decision was dismissed, [2013] EWHC 318 (Admin).
• District Judge Purdy: On 16 October 2012, directed the appellant’s removal to Hungary to face a murder charge.