Agnes Tolnai v District Court of Debrecen (Hungary)

In assessing proportionality under Extradition Act 2003, the court must make a broad judgment confined to the specified statutory factors. The seriousness of the alleged offending and the likely sentence are central considerations.

A less coercive measure must be reasonably available in the circumstances. An informal arrangement allowing remote participation in foreign proceedings does not necessarily qualify where the United Kingdom has declared that it will not sanction remote participation in a trial. Mutual respect between the executing and requesting authorities, and the United Kingdom’s sovereignty and policy, form part of the relevant context.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge McGarva on 12 September 2024 for her extradition to Hungary to face a charge of supplying controlled drugs.

The District Judge rejected the statutory bars and concluded that extradition would not be disproportionate under section 21A. Although the Hungarian court was willing to allow the appellant to attend proceedings by video link, the United Kingdom had declared that it would not sanction video conferencing involving an accused person at a trial. Subsequent proceedings in Hungary took place remotely, and the appellant was convicted at first instance, but the arrest warrant remained in force and her conviction was under appeal. The central issue was whether those developments demonstrated that the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to establish under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 that subsequent evidence would have required the District Judge to reach a different decision and order her discharge.
2. Section 21A requires a comparatively broad proportionality judgment, bounded by the specified matters in section 21A(2) and (3). The alleged supply of cocaine, speed and marijuana over several months constituted serious offending. The likely outcome following conviction was a significant immediate custodial sentence. Those considerations provided no basis for finding extradition disproportionate.
3. The District Judge correctly considered the possibility of less coercive measures under section 21A(3)(c). The United Kingdom’s declaration under article 9(9) of the Protocol was an essential part of the context. The United Kingdom would not sanction remote participation by an accused person in a hearing forming part of that person’s trial. The Hungarian authority therefore maintained that the coercive effect of the arrest warrant remained necessary.
4. The appellant’s subsequent attendance at Hungarian hearings by video link did not undermine the original assessment. The arrangement was voluntary and lacked the sanction of the United Kingdom authorities. Hungary had not withdrawn the arrest warrant and continued to seek extradition. In those circumstances, no other measure had been shown to be reasonably available to secure attendance at trial.
5. The court respectfully agreed with the analysis in Beraru v Romania that an informal, unsanctioned remote-trial arrangement could not properly be treated as a less coercive measure for section 21A purposes. That analysis was obiter in Beraru v Romania, but the present court considered it persuasive. The appellant’s new arguments concerning treaty obligations and the legal effect of the declaration were raised too late and fell outside the permitted ground of appeal.
6. The alternative abuse-of-process submission also failed. The Hungarian conviction was not final because an appeal remained pending, and the arrest warrant had not been withdrawn.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The appellant was arrested and proceedings commenced on 17 January 2024.
• District Judge McGarva: On 12 September 2024, ordered extradition to Hungary and held that extradition was not disproportionate.
• High Court: Permission to appeal was granted on ground (2) only. The court upheld the District Judge’s proportionality conclusion.