Innocent Uche Johnbull v Hungarian Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal under Article 8, a strong private life in the United Kingdom may support a viable appeal, even where the person acted fugitively. Its weight depends on the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offending, the public interest in extradition, and the quality and duration of the private life relied upon.

The appellate court must consider whether the extradition judge properly weighed the private-life evidence. Permission may be refused where the judge did address that evidence and there is no realistic prospect of the appeal succeeding at a substantive hearing. Permission to adduce fresh evidence may likewise be refused where it could not be decisive.

The appellant, a Nigerian national, appealed against an order by District Judge Tempia for his extradition to Hungary to serve a three-year-and-six-month sentence for a serious and sophisticated fraud involving money laundering and transfers induced by false electronic messages.

The extradition judge had found that the appellant had left Hungary as a fugitive, knew of the criminal proceedings, breached a duty to notify the authorities of his change of address, and had been subject to no material delay reducing the public interest in extradition. The appellant relied on his settled employment, accommodation, family responsibilities and private life in the United Kingdom, together with proposed fresh evidence.

The central issues were whether the judge had properly considered the appellant’s Article 8 private life and whether there was any realistic prospect of the appeal succeeding.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The extradition judge had expressly considered and weighed the appellant’s private life, including his settled employment and accommodation in the United Kingdom since 2018. It was therefore unsustainable to argue that the judge had ignored or failed to address that evidence.
2. A strong private life may be relevant to an Article 8 extradition appeal even after an act of fugitivity. Giedrojc v Poland [2023] EWHC 863 (Admin) provided a useful illustration. That case involved a trivial drug offence and a ten-year private life, whereas the present case involved a serious and sophisticated fraud, a substantial sentence and a shorter period of private life in the United Kingdom.
3. The public interest in extradition was exceptionally strong. The appellant had knowingly left Hungary while proceedings were ongoing and had failed to comply with a known notification obligation. The offending involved eight occasions and an aggregate value equivalent to €242,000. The extradition judge had also properly found that the complexity of the case and the steps taken to locate the appellant meant that delay did not materially diminish the public interest.
4. There was no realistic prospect that the appeal would be overturned at a substantive hearing. Permission to adduce the proposed fresh evidence was refused because, even after consideration, it was incapable of being decisive.

• District Judge Tempia: ordered the appellant’s extradition to Hungary on 17 November 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused permission to appeal and refused permission to adduce proposed fresh evidence.