Kevin Herceg v Budapest Environs Regional Court (Hungary)

A renewed application for permission to appeal an extradition order should be refused where the lower court reached a permissible conclusion on the evidence and no materially significant new evidence or argument is shown. Fresh evidence concerning prison conditions will not justify reopening an Article 3 issue where materially identical evidence has already been held incapable of undermining the requesting state’s assurance or the presumption of compliance. Questions about sentence calculation and credit for time spent on bail or curfew are ordinarily matters for the requesting state’s courts. They do not create a statutory or Convention bar to extradition unless the alleged defect reaches the high threshold required to engage such a bar.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s order dated 16 September 2024 for his extradition to Hungary to serve sentences for fraud and handling stolen goods. The district judge rejected arguments under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. Permission to appeal on Article 8 was refused on paper, and the appellant renewed the application out of time. He later sought to rely on new material concerning prison conditions and advanced a new argument that Hungary might not credit periods spent on bail subject to electronic monitoring.

Before the Administrative Court were an adjournment application, an extension-of-time application, an application to adduce fresh evidence, a renewed application for permission to appeal, and an application to stay proceedings pending clarification of sentence credit.

1. Adjournment. The application to adjourn to obtain new legal representation was dismissed. The case had already been professionally argued at several stages, the applicant was able to make focused submissions, and any application based on the withdrawal of his previous representatives should have been made promptly.
2. Fresh evidence and Article 3. The reports concerning prison conditions in Hungary were refused admission. In Berki v Hungary [2025] EWHC 1080 (Admin), materially identical reports had been held incapable of undermining Hungary’s assurance concerning personal space or rebutting the presumption that an EU member state would comply with Article 3. No reason was shown for reaching a different conclusion. Permission to appeal on Article 3 was therefore refused.
3. Sentence credit. The calculation of the sentence and any credit for periods spent on bail or under a curfew were matters for the Hungarian court. Even assuming that credit might be due but withheld without good reason, the circumstances fell far short of demonstrating defective sentencing practice capable of engaging a statutory bar to extradition. A refusal to give credit would not establish a bar under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 or the ECHR. No diplomatic assurance was required.
4. Article 8 and delay. The new point could have been raised for more than two years and there was no adequate explanation for the delay. The medical records produced at the hearing added nothing significant to the evidence considered by the district judge. Her conclusion that the balance favoured extradition was plainly permissible, and there were no grounds to interfere with her findings.
5. The stay application, fresh-evidence application and renewed permission application were dismissed. The extension of time for the renewal application was granted.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The district judge ordered extradition on 16 September 2024. Permission to appeal was refused by Lang J on 6 February 2025. The renewed application, together with the ancillary applications, was dismissed by the Administrative Court on 28 January 2026. The extension of time was granted.