MONIKA KOCSIS v DISTRICT COURT OF PECS HUNGARY

On a renewed application for bail in an extradition case, the court must reconsider the material circumstances, including any claimed change in circumstances or new consideration. A fresh consideration does not require the court to repeat detailed reasons already given where the same risk assessment remains applicable. The decisive question is whether there remain substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender despite proposed conditions. New evidence must materially alter that assessment. Evidence of deteriorating mental health will not necessarily reduce absconding risk where the condition is understood and treated in custody, and where reliance on that condition and other matters in resisting extradition does not strengthen the applicant’s position.

The applicant had previously been refused bail in connection with extradition proceedings, in a judgment dated 7 July 2021, [2021] EWHC 1901 (Admin). She renewed her application under section 5 (6A) of the Bail Act 1976, relying on the adjournment of the extradition hearing, a social worker’s report, information concerning mental health care in Hungarian custody, and a psychiatric addendum reporting significant deterioration.

The court was asked to reconsider the bail merits afresh and to revisit the previous assessment that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding proposed conditions.

1. Application refused. The court reconsidered the bail application and was not prepared to grant bail.
2. The relevant issue remained the risk of failure to surrender. The previous concerns continued to arise for the same reasons. The latest information did not materially change the assessment that substantial grounds existed for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender despite the proposed conditions.
3. A consideration afresh did not amount to an entrenched refusal to engage with new evidence. It meant that the court had thought again about the earlier assessment. Where the same considerations remained applicable, it was unnecessary to repeat the detailed factual analysis in the earlier judgment. The court adopted that reasoning because it remained applicable on reconsideration.
4. The social worker’s report did not provide further support for treating the applicant’s daughter as a strong anchoring feature. The current evidence concerning mental health, and the applicant’s reliance on mental health issues and other matters in resisting extradition, did not strengthen her position or undermine the respondent’s concerns.
5. The court accepted that the applicant’s deteriorating mental health was understood within the prison system, that she was receiving appropriate medication and treatment, and that the risk of self-harm was known. Those matters did not materially reduce the risk of absconding.

The application for bail was therefore refused.

This was a sequel judgment on a renewed bail application. The court had previously refused bail in [2021] EWHC 1901 (Admin). The renewed application was refused.