ERNO TAKACS v REGIONAL COURT VESPREM (HUNGARY)

In an extradition appeal, a court may proceed in the appellant’s absence where the appellant has waived attendance, proceeding is necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice, there is no risk of injustice, and open justice is secured. A renewed application for permission to appeal should be dismissed where its sole Article 3 prison-conditions ground has become unsustainable in light of binding Supreme Court authority.

The appellant’s extradition to Hungary had been ordered on 6 December 2019. His renewed application for permission to appeal concerned the sole ground that extradition would expose him to a breach of Article 3 because of prison conditions.

The ground was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14. It was subsequently abandoned. The appellant did not attend or communicate with the court. The issues were whether the hearing could fairly proceed in his absence and whether the renewed application should be dismissed.

1. The court was satisfied that the appellant had waived his right to attend. Proceeding was necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice, having regard to the overriding objective. There was no risk of injustice, and open justice was secured.
2. The sole Article 3 ground had become unsustainable after Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14. The appellant’s solicitors had notified the court that it was abandoned.
3. There was no substance in the appeal for which permission was sought. The renewed application for permission to appeal was formally dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal dismissed.