Csente v Magistral Court of Papa, Hungary (EAW 1) & Anor

An extradition warrant satisfies section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 where, read as a whole and with permissible further information, it makes the accusation and applicable maximum sentences sufficiently clear. The court may respect differing foreign approaches to charging. However, a warrant is defective where its statements about the number of counts, the applicable criminal provisions and the maximum sentences cannot be reconciled. The question whether further information fills a lacuna or amounts to a wholesale failure to provide particulars depends on the facts.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s decision dated 17 February 2017 ordering extradition to Hungary under five European Arrest Warrants. The appeal concerned EAW 1, issued by the District Court of Pápa for prosecution for theft offences, and EAW 4, issued by the Szombathely District Court for alleged thefts from three shops.

The issues were whether the warrants supplied sufficient particulars of the accusations and maximum sentences under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the relevant information could be understood by reconciling the warrants with the Hungarian Criminal Code and further information.

1. EAW 1. The warrant was intelligible when read as a whole. Box C stated a maximum sentence of five years, and box E clearly stated that five offences, rather than six or seven, qualified for extradition. The particulars reinforced that conclusion.
2. The provisions of the Hungarian Criminal Code explained how the value of the property and aggravating features affected the maximum sentence. The warrant identified the relevant categories of theft and the aggravating circumstance of habitual, business-like offending. The maximum sentence of five years was therefore adequately stated.
3. EAW 4. The warrant failed to meet section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Box C referred to maximum sentences of two and three years without identifying with finality the number of offences. Box E first referred to one offence on one count, but later described a felony on one count and a misdemeanour on another. The further information identified three offences and changed the statutory provision applicable to one count from section 370(2) to section 370(3).
4. The court accepted that the Hungarian authorities were entitled to choose how to charge the conduct and that different jurisdictions adopt different charging procedures. Nevertheless, the three offences in the further information could not be matched with the warrant’s contents. The statutory change, coupled with the other defects, meant that the warrant was defective.
5. Following the approach in Di Benedetto v Court of Palermo, Italy [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin), whether further information supplies a lacuna or reveals a wholesale failure to provide the necessary particulars is a question dependent on the particular facts.
6. The appeal was allowed in relation to EAW 4. The conclusion concerning EAW 1 remained that the warrant satisfied section 2.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal in relation to EAW 4 and upheld the validity of EAW 1. The appeal was from the District Judge’s extradition decision dated 17 February 2017.