Nemeth v Hungarian Judicial Authorities

In extradition appeals, permission should be granted where the proposed appeal is reasonably arguable after the court takes a step back and considers whether the overall outcome may be wrong. The appellate court does not simply substitute its own evaluation for that of the district judge. An unusual conclusion that extradition is justified in principle but should be postponed may nevertheless warrant appellate consideration, particularly where it may affect a linked prosecution of multiple defendants. Case-management stays should be confined to issues genuinely dependent on another pending decision. Applications for further evidence or enhanced representation may be refused where the existing material is sufficient and the expenditure is unjustified.

These linked cases concerned accusation European arrest warrants seeking the extradition of four requested persons to Hungary in connection with an alleged large-scale telephone scam. The cases followed three decisions in Westminster magistrates’ court and involved applications for permission to appeal, cross-appeals and applications to stay particular issues pending the determination of Bogdan.

The court considered whether certain extradition and human-rights issues should be stayed, whether permission should be granted on an Article 8 challenge concerning Marina Horvath, and whether further psychological, sentencing and Queen’s Counsel reports should be funded.

1. The court stayed the section 2/Article 6 ECHR issue in Bogdan on the same terms as in Ekwoge v Hungary [2021] EWHC 3163 (Admin). Four other proposed issues were left for determination at a reconvened hearing, including alleged delays, the position of Roma requested persons, and two Article 3 prison-condition issues.

2. Applications to stay the section 12A and Article 8 grounds were refused. The court considered that those permission applications could be resolved at the reconvened hearing without further delay.

3. Permission to appeal was granted on the Article 8 issue concerning Marina Horvath. Applying the stand-back approach identified in Love v United States [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 2889, the proposed appeal crossed the threshold of reasonable arguability because the overall outcome might have been wrong.

4. The court emphasised that an appellate court does not simply substitute its evaluation for that of the district judge. Nevertheless, the unusual conclusion that extradition was justified in principle but should be postponed because of the welfare of a young child warranted consideration. The issue was potentially significant in light of mutual trust and recognition, the number and age of the alleged victims, the linked defendants and the possible consequences for a single or multiple trial. The court also identified arguable concerns about bail, the likely impact on the child and the assessment of the requested person’s alleged role in the criminal organisation. The approach was consistent with observations by Lady Hale in HH [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338.

5. Applications for further psychological and Hungarian sentencing reports were refused because the permission application could properly be determined on the existing material. The application for Queen’s Counsel funding was also refused because it was not a justified expense at that stage.

6. The section 2 particularisation permission application concerning Csaba Nemeth was deferred to the reconvened hearing. The cases were adjourned part-heard, with directions and a draft order to follow.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the linked matters arose from three decisions in Westminster magistrates’ court. The High Court granted permission to appeal on Marina Horvath’s Article 8 ground, stayed the section 2/Article 6 issue pending Bogdan, refused stays of the section 12A and other Article 8 grounds, refused further-report and Queen’s Counsel funding applications, and deferred the remaining issues to a reconvened hearing.