Sandor Jakab v Regional Court of Zalaegerszeg, Hungary

For section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the conduct described in an extradition request must be capable of amounting to an offence under UK law. Transporting waste in a vehicle does not, without more, constitute keeping waste for the purposes of section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the same conduct may constitute transporting controlled waste without registration under section 1 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. Article 8 requires all material consequences of extradition to be weighed, including likely family separation under the post-EU immigration rules. Extradition remained proportionate despite errors in the lower court’s assessment of sentence length and seriousness.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Hungary. Permission was granted on a section 10 issue concerning one waste-transport offence and on an article 8 issue. A further article 3 ground concerning prison conditions was added but later abandoned.

The District Judge held that the waste conduct would amount to an offence under section 33(1)(c) and section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and rejected the article 8 challenge. The central issues were whether the conduct satisfied the statutory dual-criminality requirement and whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with private and family life.

1. Section 10 and controlled waste. The used radiator grilles and aluminium wires were accepted to be controlled waste. Applying section 9(2) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, used lead-acid batteries also fell within the broad definition of scrap metal and therefore constituted controlled waste.

2. Section 33 offence. Transporting the materials in a car did not amount to keeping controlled waste for section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 29(3), together with the statutory context of waste on land, indicated that the provision concerned waste treated, kept or deposited on land. The District Judge therefore erred in relying on section 33 to satisfy section 10.

3. Alternative statutory bases. The same conduct was capable of constituting an offence under section 1 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. The absence of an official permit established the relevant licensing element, and the quantity and nature of the materials supported the clear inference that they were transported with a view to profit. The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 also applied. Regulation 12, read as a whole and purposively, did not exclude waste originating abroad but transported through England.

4. Article 8. The public interest in fulfilling international extradition obligations, the seriousness of the remaining offences, and the appellant’s fugitive status carried substantial weight. The District Judge had placed excessive weight on the global sentence and had not adjusted the assessment for offences in respect of which extradition was refused. Those errors required the balance to be reconsidered, but did not make the result wrong.

5. The likely difficulty or refusal of the appellant’s return to the UK after serving his sentence was a material article 8 consideration. The current Immigration Rules indicated a strong likelihood of long-term separation unless the family relocated to Hungary. That factor was nevertheless outweighed by the public interest and the seriousness of the offences.

6. Both grounds of appeal failed. The appeal was dismissed.

• District Judge: ordered extradition on 17 May 2019 and rejected the article 8 challenge.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was granted on section 10 and article 8 grounds. The appeal was dismissed.