Janos Lajos Magyar v Budapest Environs Court, Hungary

In an extradition appeal based on prison conditions, a court may rely on a specific assurance from a non-judicial authority where, on an overall assessment of the available information, the assurance is sufficiently cogent and reliable. Relevant gaps or concerns should be addressed by obtaining information from the requesting state. Excluding an assurance that has been relied on for a substantial period would be artificial where the appellant has had a clear opportunity to challenge it but produces no material capable of undermining it.

Where a new legal issue has not been developed sufficiently to permit assessment, the court may refuse an adjournment and identify reopening the appeal as an appropriate safeguard.

The appellant appealed in extradition proceedings concerning his return to Hungary to serve the balance of a sentence for robbery and conspiracy to steal. Permission had been granted on an Article 3 ECHR prison-conditions ground. The appeal had been stayed pending the decisions in Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary, including the Supreme Court judgment, and the appellant also relied on arguments advanced in Piroska v Appeal Court in Gyula.

The respondent relied on a Ministry of Justice assurance guaranteeing a minimum of 3m² and detention at specified Hungarian prisons. The appellant challenged its admission, reliability and sufficiency, and raised a developing issue under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issues were whether the assurance should be admitted and relied upon, whether an adjournment was required, and what safeguard was appropriate for the unresolved section 2 issue.

1. Article 3 assurance. The appeal on prison conditions failed. The Ministry of Justice assurance dated 5 July 2018 was admissible and could properly be considered. It had been relied on for more than three years, and the appellant had a clear opportunity to adduce material challenging its cogency or reliability but had produced none.
2. The court applied the overall assessment approach to a non-judicial assurance identified in Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary. If relevant gaps or concerns arise, the extradition court must obtain the information needed from the requesting state. It would be artificial and contrary to the interests of justice, the public interest and the overriding objective to exclude the assurance only to create a further evidential exercise in which the same assurance would necessarily have to be considered.
3. The assurance’s reference to mutual recognition and mutual trust did not prevent reliance on its separate guarantee and assurances. The court made explicit that extradition was compatible with Article 3 only on the basis of the guarantee and assurances on the second page of the letter, and not on the basis of mutual recognition and mutual trust.
4. The assurance’s lack of further detail concerning monitoring, transit and the Article 3 status of the named prisons did not undermine it. The content was materially the same as the assurance considered in Zabolotnyi, and Fuzesi v Budapest-Capital Regional Court, Hungary had recognised the named prisons as reliably guaranteeing Article 3 compliance.
5. Section 2 issue. The court declined to adjourn or stay the appeal to develop the new section 2 argument. There was no material before the court enabling it to assess the argument or any asserted connection with the Article 3 issue. Reopening the appeal, if properly advised, provided an adequate safeguard. The “10 day” period under section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 was ordered to commence on 7 October 2021.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The court relied on the Hungarian Ministry of Justice assurance for the Article 3 assessment, refused an adjournment, and directed that the section 36(3)(b) period commence on 7 October 2021.

The judgment records that Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary had been decided by the Divisional Court at [2019] EWHC 934 (Admin) and upheld by the Supreme Court at [2021] UKSC 14, reported at [2021] 1 WLR 2569.