Milan Orsos v Pecs District Court, Hungary

In an extradition appeal based solely on ECHR Article 8, proportionality requires all relevant features to be weighed cumulatively against the public interest in extradition. Relevant considerations may include mental-health risks, qualifying remand, time spent on an electronically monitored curfew, delay, the requested state’s expedition, and the seriousness of the alleged offending.

Qualifying remand already credited against, and extinguishing, a custodial sentence cannot be counted again as a factor against extradition on another warrant. Passage of time and family separation may carry reduced weight where the requested person has acted as a fugitive, absconded, or where other proceedings have delayed extradition. Mental-health evidence may be significant without meeting the separate thresholds under ECHR Article 3 or section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The appellant faced extradition to Hungary on several European extradition warrants. Earlier warrants concerning an eight-month sentence and a 32-month sentence had been withdrawn or extinguished because of qualifying remand served in the United Kingdom. The remaining appeal concerned an accusation warrant relating to alleged assault and affray.

The appellant relied on mental-health difficulties, self-harm and suicide risks, qualifying remand, electronically monitored curfews, the passage of time, alleged lack of expedition, and the relative seriousness of the alleged offending. The central issue was whether extradition on the remaining warrant would be disproportionate under ECHR Article 8.

1. Disposition. The appeal against extradition on EAW2 was dismissed. EAW3 was discharged. The court recorded that the 32-month and eight-month custodial sentences were extinguished and could not be served in Hungary. Permission to rely on fresh evidence was refused because it could not have been decisive.
2. Qualifying remand. Remand credited against a sentence which had thereby been extinguished could not be relied upon again in the Article 8 proportionality assessment concerning EAW2. The relevant qualifying remand was therefore 198 days, although extradition would have remained proportionate even on the appellant’s larger calculation of 438 days. The court relied on the approach discussed in JZ (Case C-294/16 PPU) and the dual-remand reasoning in Marosan v Romania [2021] EWHC 3098 (Admin).
3. Balancing exercise. The six factors relied upon by the appellant were considered individually and cumulatively. The electronically monitored curfew was relevant but was not a qualifying curfew and carried no substantial weight. Passage of time and alleged lack of expedition had limited weight because the appellant had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, later absconded, and had placed himself beyond the reach of Hungarian justice. The delay also reflected pending Article 3 prison-condition test cases.
4. Mental health and seriousness. The mental-health evidence showed a significant risk of self-harm and some risk of suicide, particularly through separation from family. It did not approach the thresholds under ECHR Article 3 or section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The alleged group assault in broad daylight, together with the appellant’s serious previous violent offending, gave rise to a strong public interest in extradition.
5. The strong public interest in trial, vindication of victims, and service of any remaining sentence decisively outweighed the factors relied upon under Article 8.

1. Magistrates’ court: DJ Jabbitt ordered extradition on EAW1 and EAW2 after rejecting arguments under section 21A, Article 8 and section 25.
2. Magistrates’ court: DJ Snow ordered extradition on EAW3 after rejecting Article 3, Article 8 and section 25 arguments.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeals were joined. The appeal concerning EAW2 was dismissed, while EAW3 was discharged.