Ivanishinets v The Local Court of Mateszalka (Hungary)

At the permission stage of an extradition appeal, the appellate court asks whether the requested person has shown a reasonably arguable basis for concluding that the district judge was wrong. The court may stand back from individual criticisms and consider whether the overall evaluative judgment was wrong because crucial factors required materially different weight. In an Article 8 extradition assessment, the best interests of a child are a primary consideration, but are not necessarily paramount. Where the district judge has carefully identified and evaluated the competing family, humanitarian and public-interest factors, permission should be refused unless the decision or outcome is reasonably arguable as wrong or human-rights incompatible.

The appellant challenged an order made by DJ Baraitser requiring her extradition to Hungary in connection with an accusation that she had paid for and used a Hungarian passport bearing her photograph but another person’s identifying details. She relied principally on Article 8, referring to her husband’s established life in the United Kingdom, their infant daughter, the possible detention arrangements in Hungary, uncertainty about bail and sentence, and the consequences of separation.

Goose J had refused permission on the papers. The Administrative Court reconsidered permission, including whether the district judge had erred in evaluating the family impact, uncertainty, delay, fugitivity and public interest in extradition.

1. Permission refused. Applying the approach in Love v United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin); [2018] 1 WLR 2889, the question was whether the appellant had shown a reasonably arguable case that the district judge’s decision was wrong. The appellate court could stand back and assess whether the overall evaluation had gone wrong because crucial factors should have received materially different weight.
2. The district judge had scrutinised the evidence with care, identified the relevant considerations and made sustainable findings after hearing oral evidence from the appellant and her husband. There was no realistic prospect of overturning the outcome on Article 8 grounds.
3. The child’s welfare and best interests were a primary consideration, but not necessarily the paramount consideration. The district judge had addressed the risks of detention with the mother, separation from either parent, the child’s care after reaching one year, the uncertainty of bail and sentence, and the family’s circumstances. Those adverse consequences did not outweigh the strong public interest in extradition.
4. The court also concluded that the remote telephone hearing was appropriate. Any interference with rights or interests caused by that mode of hearing was necessary and proportionate, particularly as the hearing was publicised, recorded and made observable remotely.

The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal against the extradition order was refused in [2020] EWHC 2349 (Admin).
• District Judge Baraitser: Ordered the appellant’s extradition to Hungary after an oral hearing on 14 January 2020.
• Goose J: Refused permission to appeal on the papers on 20 August 2020.