Petrovics v Prosecutor Generals Office of Hungary

In an extradition appeal based on medical condition, oppression under section 25 requires a high threshold. The court must compare the requested person’s circumstances after extradition with those after discharge, assess the effects of extradition and incarceration, and consider whether the requesting state can meet the resulting needs through proper care and arrangements. Stress, hardship and loss of familiar domestic support do not, without more, establish oppression. The same medical evidence may be insufficient to show that extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The court may evaluate fresh evidence at its highest and dismiss the appeal where, even on that basis, the statutory and Convention thresholds are not met.

The appellant appealed an order for his extradition to Hungary under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The extradition order had been made by District Judge Griffiths on 17 August 2018. The Article 3 ground was stayed pending resolution of wider issues concerning prison conditions and assurances.

The Administrative Court granted permission to appeal and considered fresh evidence concerning the appellant’s mental and physical condition, including expert psychiatric evidence. The issues were whether extradition would be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and whether it would be disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although permission to appeal was granted, the section 25 and Article 8 grounds failed. The further fresh evidence was incapable of being decisive and permission to rely on it was refused. The Article 3 ground remained stayed.
2. For section 25, the question was whether the hardship resulting from extradition, by reason of the appellant’s medical condition, would make extradition oppressive. The court adopted the comparison between the circumstances following extradition and those following discharge. It considered the appellant’s condition and its effect on daily living, the consequences of extradition and incarceration, and the extent to which Hungary could meet adverse effects through suitable care and arrangements.
3. The court accepted that the evidence, taken at its highest, established dependency for basic daily functions, severe communication difficulties, reliance on medication, incontinence and significant value in care from family members. It also accepted that extradition would cause hardship causally linked to the appellant’s medical condition.
4. That hardship did not meet the high threshold for oppression. The relevant comparison was between care in the appellant’s home and care in a Hungarian custodial setting where the authorities discharged their responsibilities. Those responsibilities included appropriate medication, attention to incontinence and personal dignity, and measures addressing health, safety and vulnerability.
5. The same evidence did not make extradition disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The District Judge had properly undertaken the required balance-sheet assessment, and the new evidence did not show that the conclusion was wrong.
6. Had the evidence been capable of crossing either threshold, the court would have raised questions for the expert and allowed the Respondent an opportunity to respond, potentially with further evidence, directions for oral evidence and cross-examination. That was a description of the procedural course that would have been followed, not a basis for the decision.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed on the section 25 and Article 8 grounds. The Article 3 ground remained stayed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Griffiths ordered extradition on 17 August 2018.