Jozsef Csorba v Budapest Regional Court, Hungary

For Extradition Act 2003, section 20, deliberate absence is assessed by reference to the trial process resulting in the conviction, including an appeal forming part of that process. A person who knowingly and intelligently places himself beyond the jurisdiction, despite being warned of the legal consequences of non-attendance, may be treated as deliberately absent from subsequent proceedings of which he was unaware because of that conduct. The automatic lodging of an appeal in the person’s absence does not, without more, restore a right to resist extradition.

Where a requested person has a right to a retrial, the right may depend on procedural steps such as surrender, service and timely application.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Bristow on 9 November 2021 for his extradition to Hungary under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted and sentenced in his absence, and an appeal lodged by defence counsel had also been heard and dismissed in his absence.

The appeal was limited to section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant argued that the relevant hearing was the appeal hearing, of which he had been unaware, and that the evidence did not establish an entitlement to a retrial. The court considered both deliberate absence and, alternatively, the continuing availability of a retrial.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from the trial for the purposes of section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The relevant process was not confined artificially to the later appeal hearing. An appeal lodged and determined in the defendant’s absence formed part of the trial leading to the final conviction. The appellant had attended earlier hearings, had been warned of the legal consequences of non-attendance, then knowingly travelled to the United Kingdom to evade prosecution and incarceration, failed to notify the authorities of his address, submitted misleading medical evidence and ceased communication with his legal team. Those findings provided an unequivocal indication that he knowingly and intelligently put himself beyond the jurisdiction and appreciated that the proceedings would continue without him.

3. The approach was consistent with Bertino v Italy [2024] UKSC 9, including the requirement that deliberate absence correspond to an unequivocal waiver of the right to be present. The appellant’s lack of knowledge of the appeal was the direct consequence of his own deliberate disengagement and did not negate deliberate absence.

4. The court considered, although unnecessarily, whether the appellant would be entitled to a retrial under section 20(5). The European Arrest Warrant, the specific Hungarian response and general information supplied in another case established that the one-month period ran from service of the judgment after surrender. Since there was no evidence that the judgment had been served, the period had not expired.

5. General information from another case was not automatically inadmissible. Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) concerned a materially different assurance about prison conditions and did not establish a universal rule against using genuinely general information about foreign law or procedure. The conclusion was consistent with Merticariu v Romania [2024] UKSC 10.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The court upheld the District Judge’s finding of deliberate absence and, alternatively, his conclusion that a retrial remained available.
• District Judge Bristow: on 9 November 2021, ordered extradition to Hungary.