Horvath v Hungarian Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal, the court may proceed in the appellant’s absence where it is satisfied that the absence is deliberate. The possibility of reopening an appeal in exceptional circumstances provides a safeguard against real injustice.

Delay since historic offending does not necessarily weaken the public interest in extradition or increase the impact on private and family life. Where historic offending has been reactivated following breach of conditional release, and extradition is also sought for more recent offending, the lapse of time may have no material effect on the Article 8 balance. An appellate court should not interfere with a District Judge’s balancing exercise where it is legally sound.

This was a substantive extradition appeal against a District Judge’s order for extradition to Hungary. The European arrest warrant concerned a nine-month custodial sentence for driving under the influence of cannabis in 2016 and a further five months and eight days arising from the revocation of conditional release connected with 2006 offending.

Permission to appeal was granted on a single Article 8 ECHR issue: whether the District Judge had failed to take account of the staleness of the 2006 offending and the passage of time. Permission on an Article 3 ECHR issue and on a proposed stay had been refused. The appellant did not attend the appeal, and the court first considered whether it was appropriate to proceed.

1. Proceeding in the appellant’s absence. The court was satisfied that the appellant’s absence was deliberate. His former solicitors had been unable to contact him, had described him as having absconded, and hearing notice sent to his registered address had been returned. It was therefore appropriate to proceed. Criminal Procedure Rules 50.27 provided a safeguard by permitting an application to reopen an appeal where exceptional circumstances made that necessary to avoid real injustice.
2. Article 8 and delay. The District Judge’s balance under the Celinski approach was legally unimpeachable. The 2006 offending had become directly relevant again in 2016 when the conditional release was revoked after breach of its conditions and the outstanding custodial term was activated. That constituted a current Hungarian judicial response to which proper respect was due. Extradition was then pursued promptly after the appellant left Hungary and failed to return to custody.
3. The case also concerned a more recent 2016 offence carrying a nine-month sentence. Accordingly, the lapse of time since the 2006 offending could not materially weaken the public interest in extradition or increase the impact on the appellant’s private and family life in either of the ways identified in HH [2012] UKSC 25, para 8(6).
4. Even if delay could have affected one or both aspects of the balance, there was no basis for overturning the District Judge’s conclusion. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• District Judge: Extradition to Hungary was ordered on 8 January 2020 following an oral hearing on 9 December 2019.
• High Court: Jay J granted permission to appeal on the limited Article 8 ECHR issue concerning the alleged staleness of the 2006 offending. Permission on the Article 3 ECHR issue and the proposed stay was refused.