Atilla Norbert Lakatos v Hungarian Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings, an Article 3 challenge based on asserted sexual orientation or Roma ethnicity will fail where the fact-finding judge has made unimpeachable adverse credibility findings and the evidence does not establish a systemic failure by the requesting state to provide protection against Article 3 ill-treatment.

A new Article 8 claim cannot succeed where it depends on rejected factual allegations. In any event, qualified Article 8 rights must be weighed against the strong public interest in extradition. Issues that received a full and fair opportunity for determination should not be reopened or delayed without a proper basis.

The appellant faced extradition to Hungary in separate proceedings before District Judge Robinson and District Judge Heptonstall concerning alleged frauds forming part of the same telephone scam. The judges rejected his evidence concerning bisexuality and concluded that the evidence did not establish a systemic failure to protect Roma or LGBTQI individuals from Article 3 ill-treatment.

Permission to appeal was refused in each case. The court granted an extension of time in the Heptonstall appeal and heard both renewal applications together because they raised the same issues and relevant evidence overlapped. The appellant also sought to raise new Article 8 and prison-conditions arguments.

1. Disposition. The extension of time in the Heptonstall appeal was granted. The renewed applications for permission to appeal in both the Robinson and Heptonstall appeals were dismissed.
2. The two matters were properly heard together in the interests of justice and the public interest, having regard to the overriding objective. The appellant suffered no legitimate prejudice because he was aware of both cases and could rely on the material in each.
3. The Article 3 grounds had no realistic prospect of success. The adverse credibility findings concerning the appellant’s asserted bisexuality were independently reached by both extradition judges and were unimpeachable on appeal. The evidence concerning alleged mistreatment of bisexual persons was therefore irrelevant to the factual basis advanced.
4. Even assuming bisexuality, the expert report provided no evidence that the Hungarian state systemically failed to protect bisexual individuals from Article 3 mistreatment. The same reasoning applied to the appellant’s Roma ethnicity. The combination of those characteristics did not alter the conclusion.
5. The new Article 8 family-life claim, based on the appellant’s relationship with his cellmate and an alleged intention to marry, could not succeed in light of the adverse credibility findings. In any event, qualified Article 8 rights would not outweigh the strong and obvious public interest in extradition.
6. Further arguments concerning prison overcrowding and conditions, prison officials, the Hungarian courts, Roma discrimination and the appellant’s family had already received a full and fair opportunity for determination. They did not justify reopening any issue, granting permission to appeal or granting an adjournment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal had been refused on the papers in the Robinson appeal by May J on 28 March 2023 and in the Heptonstall appeal by Julian Knowles J on 27 October 2023. Fordham J granted an extension of time in the Heptonstall appeal, heard both renewal applications together and dismissed them.
• District Judge Robinson: Ordered the appellant’s extradition in November 2022.
• District Judge Heptonstall: Ordered the appellant’s extradition on 12 June 2023.