Fulop v Law Courts Of Szeged (Hungary)

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the question whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive requires an overall assessment of the relevant circumstances. Ordinary stress and hardship caused by extradition are insufficient, and the threshold is high. In suicide-risk cases, the court must assess the person’s mental condition, the risk of suicide and the arrangements available in the requesting state. For an EU state, adequate medical and preventative arrangements are ordinarily presumed unless rebutted by evidence.

Under Article 8, exceptionality describes the predicted seriousness of extradition’s consequences; it is not a separate legal test. The court must balance the individual and family impact against the public interest in extradition, having regard to the seriousness of the offending and the circumstances of delay.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Baraitser on 19 March 2021 requiring his extradition to Hungary to serve a sentence for cannabis dealing offences. Permission was later granted to rely on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the ECHR.

The appellant relied on alleged rape in a Hungarian prison, psychiatric evidence diagnosing PTSD and depression, suicide risk, and the effect of extradition on his partner and children. His Article 3 ground concerning prison conditions was abandoned. The central issues were whether his mental condition made extradition unjust or oppressive and whether extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Section 25. The statutory test required an overall judgment on all relevant circumstances. The threshold was high. Extradition’s ordinary stress and hardship did not satisfy it.
2. The appellant’s late allegation of rape was assessed in the context of his wider conduct, including his flight from Hungary after securing a postponement of his sentence. Inconsistencies, the timing of the allegation and the absence of cross-examination materially damaged his credibility.
3. The psychiatric report was given no material weight. The expert had not met the appellant, interviewed him by telephone without an interpreter, had no access to relevant medical records, and had failed to disclose manuscript notes. The evidence did not establish the asserted suicide risk or show that the statutory threshold was met.
4. The court applied the principles in Turner, Wolkowicz and Assange. The court was not required to obtain a guarantee that the appellant would not commit suicide. Medical facilities and appropriate preventative measures in Hungary were presumed to be available, and that presumption had not been rebutted. No specific assurance was required.
5. Article 8. Exceptionality was a prediction of the seriousness of the consequences, not an additional test. The effect on the children, the appellant’s employment and possible depression carried limited weight. The seriousness of the drug offending, the public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and preventing fugitives evading justice, the absence of significant unexplained delay, and the appellant’s flight substantially outweighed the factors relied upon.
6. The appeal was dismissed. The alternative question of obtaining further assurances did not arise.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Baraitser on 19 March 2021 was dismissed.