Vermes v Hungarian Judicial Authority

In an accusation case, the presumption of bail remains subject to the court’s assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. The court must consider the matter afresh and assess whether proposed conditions sufficiently address that risk.

Proportionality requires consideration of the applicant’s personal, family, medical and custodial circumstances. Repeated offending, previous absconding or failures to comply with reporting requirements, access to family abroad, and the absence of compelling UK ties may together justify continued custody despite stringent conditions.

The applicant sought bail pending an extradition hearing concerning three Hungarian arrest warrants for alleged theft-related offences committed when he was a juvenile. He had been detained since January 2023 and had previously been refused bail on two occasions.

He proposed security, residence, electronic monitoring, reporting and travel restrictions. He relied on his family and relationship in the United Kingdom, his medical condition, the length of his detention and the allegedly low-level and historic nature of the offences. The respondent relied on the risk of non-surrender. The central issues were whether that risk remained substantial and whether continued custody was disproportionate.

1. Application dismissed. In an accusation case the presumption of bail applied, but the court was required to consider the matter afresh. There were substantial grounds for fearing that the applicant would fail to surrender despite the proposed conditions.
2. The applicant had numerous Hungarian convictions for dishonesty, a conviction for escape from lawful custody, and a history of absconding or failing to comply with address-reporting requirements in connection with the relevant proceedings. That history meant that he could not be trusted to comply with bail conditions.
3. The applicant’s financial and emotional involvement with his son, his relationship and other ties in the United Kingdom were not sufficiently compelling to make continued remand disproportionate. There was no evidence of employment capable of materially reducing the risk of absconding.
4. The medical evidence did not show that his condition could not be adequately managed within the prison estate. His previous juvenile status did not create current vulnerability because he was now several years over 18. The period of custody, including the anticipated period before the extradition hearing, did not require release.
5. The applicant also had close family in Germany and could draw on those ties if he decided to abscond. Considering all the circumstances, continued custody was proportionate.

This was a first-instance bail application in the High Court. The judgment records that bail had previously been refused by District Judge Greenfield on 14 March 2023 and by District Judge Heptonstall on 16 May 2023.