Marina Horvath v Central District Court of Buda, Hungary

A statutory extradition appeal cannot ordinarily be used to challenge an interlocutory remittal decision where a successful challenge would lead only to further directions and an adjournment, rather than discharge. The appropriate route is judicial review.

On remittal under the Extradition Act 2003, a district judge may in principle receive fresh evidence on an issue previously argued where the evidence has become available since the original hearing and might be decisive. The evidence must satisfy the usual fresh-evidence principles. Even where the lower judge applied the wrong reasoning, relief may be refused where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.

The appellant faced extradition to Hungary to stand trial for conspiracy to defraud elderly victims and money laundering. District Judge Fanning discharged her on Article 8 grounds, but rejected challenges concerning the independence of the Hungarian judiciary and alleged Roma discrimination under section 13(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.

The Respondent successfully appealed, and the matter was remitted under section 29(5) of the Act: [2022] EWHC 3483 (Admin). District Judge Griffiths refused an application for directions to obtain fresh evidence on the previously rejected issues and ordered extradition. The appellant challenged that decision. The central issues were the correct procedural route, the power to receive fresh evidence after remittal, and whether any error justified relief.

1. The statutory appeal under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. The challenge to District Judge Griffiths’ interlocutory decision was treated as an application for judicial review, and permission was granted. Under section 27(3), a statutory appeal could succeed only if the relevant question should have been decided differently and that different decision would have required discharge. A favourable decision on the application for further evidence would have produced only directions and an adjournment. Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin) supported that approach.

2. District Judge Griffiths was wrong to conclude that she lacked power to receive fresh evidence because District Judge Fanning was no longer available and because doing so would require her to act as an appellate judge. Suceava District Court, Romania v Gurau [2023] 1 WLR 2813 establishes that, following remittal, a requested person may in principle apply to adduce fresh evidence on an issue previously argued where evidence which might be decisive has become available since the extradition hearing. The judge was bound by that guidance.

3. The judge was also wrong to treat the application as unsupported merely because the original issues had already been decided. The question was whether the proposed material met the usual principles governing fresh evidence, including the requirement that it might be decisive. Those principles were identified by reference to Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] 1 WLR 2569 and Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] 4 All ER 324.

4. Nevertheless, no relief was granted. The European Parliament resolution relied upon by the appellant fell far short of establishing a sufficient evidential basis for an adjournment. The earlier judgments concerning the same extradition proceedings had considered the Hungarian judicial-independence and Roma-fair-trial issues extensively, and the new material was incapable of being decisive.

5. The high threshold in section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was satisfied: it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different if the procedural error had not occurred. The judicial review application was dismissed, and the order for extradition remained in existence.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the present court treated the challenge to the remittal decision as an application for judicial review, dismissed it, and left the extradition order in force.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the Respondent’s appeal against District Judge Fanning’s discharge was allowed and the matter was remitted under section 29(5) of the Extradition Act 2003: [2022] EWHC 3483 (Admin).
• Magistrates’ court: District Judge Fanning discharged the appellant on Article 8 grounds on 19 April 2021. On remittal, District Judge Griffiths refused further directions and ordered extradition on 13 March 2023.