Norbert Rozgonyi v Veszprem Regional Court, Hungary

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must focus intensely on the requested person’s medical condition, its effect on daily life, and the likely effects of extradition and imprisonment. It must then consider whether adequate medical care or other arrangements in the requesting state can meet those effects.

On Article 8 grounds, extradition will generally be proportionate unless interference with private and family life is exceptionally severe. A structured balance-sheet assessment is appropriate. Under section 21A, proportionality requires consideration of the seriousness of the conduct, the likely penalty and less coercive measures. Under section 12A, the relevant absence of a prosecution decision is assessed by reference to the warrant and accompanying information, applying the statutory test under English law.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Minhas on 8 July 2024 directing extradition to Hungary under two arrest warrants. The first warrant concerned convictions for theft, criminal damage and assaults, with an activated suspended sentence. The second concerned an accusation of forgery, for which no decision to charge or try had been made.

The appeal and rolled-up permission application raised physical and mental health under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, Article 8, proportionality under section 21A, absence of a prosecution decision under section 12A, delay, fugitivity and fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the District Judge had applied the statutory tests correctly and whether the new evidence could have altered the result.

The court refused permission on Grounds 1 and 4, dismissed the appeal on Grounds 2 and 3, and refused the applications to rely on fresh evidence.

1. Section 25. Applying the intense-focus approach in Magiera v District Court of Krakow, Poland [2017] EWHC 2757 (Admin), the court upheld the finding that the appellant’s multiple conditions were not sufficiently complex to make extradition unjust or oppressive. The evidence did not show that treatment could not be provided in Hungarian prisons. The presumption of adequate medical care had not been rebutted.
2. Article 8. The District Judge had used the balance-sheet approach described in Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Others [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin). Although health, family hardship and delay favoured the appellant, the public interest in extradition, the outstanding sentence and the finding of fugitivity outweighed those factors. The consequences were hardship, but not exceptionally severe.
3. Appellate review. Relying on Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), the court held that an extradition appeal is not a rehearing of the evidence. The District Judge’s factual findings and evaluative conclusion could be disturbed only if the ultimate decision was wrong.
4. Section 21A. The forgery allegation was not minor or trivial. A custodial sentence was a realistic possibility in light of the appellant’s offending history and the commission of the offence during a suspended sentence. The absence of a response about less coercive measures was not itself a bar to extradition and was given appropriate weight in the context of the two warrants.
5. Section 12A and fresh evidence. The absence of a prosecution decision was attributable solely to the appellant’s absence at the relevant dates. The possible Hungarian in absentia procedure was discretionary and did not alter that conclusion. Fresh evidence had to be decisive, applying Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14 and Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231; the proposed medical and witness evidence did not meet that threshold.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Minhas ordered extradition on 8 July 2024. The High Court refused permission on Grounds 1 and 4, dismissed the appeal on Grounds 2 and 3, and refused the fresh evidence applications.