Gabor Kiss v Hungarian Judicial Authority

Under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, an executing court must ordinarily treat the information in an arrest warrant as decisive where it establishes that the convicted person instructed a lawyer who represented him at trial. A lawyer may be state-appointed or privately appointed. The court should not conduct a detailed factual investigation into the accuracy of the warrant unless there is ambiguity, confusion or a possible abuse of process. This reflects the mutual trust underlying the arrest-warrant system. Fresh evidence does not justify reopening that assessment where it merely invites examination of foreign proceedings and does not undermine the warrant’s clear terms.

District Judge Clarke ordered the appellant’s extradition to Hungary in respect of witness-intimidation and theft offences. The appellant accepted that he had not been personally present at the trial for the witness-intimidation offences. The arrest warrant stated that he had been aware of the scheduled trial, had given a mandate to a lawyer, and had been defended by that lawyer, although the lawyer could have been appointed by the state.

On appeal, the appellant relied on fresh evidence suggesting that the lawyer was state-appointed and that the appellant had been absent throughout the court phase. He argued that section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 was not satisfied. The respondent relied on the warrant and the district judge’s findings. The theft-offence ground fell away because the appellant had served more than the sentence imposed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s conclusion that section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 was satisfied was properly open to her.

2. Section 20 establishes a sequence. If the person was convicted in his presence, the court proceeds under section 21. If not, it considers deliberate absence, then entitlement to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial. If the person was neither deliberately absent nor entitled to such a remedy, discharge follows.

3. The arrest warrant plainly stated that the appellant had given a mandate to the lawyer who defended him at trial. The fact that the lawyer was state-appointed did not create an ambiguity. Applying Cretu v Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin), a person who has instructed a lawyer to represent him is treated as present for section 20 purposes, regardless of how he became aware of the trial. The principles in Bertino v Italy [2024] UKSC 9 and Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10 confirmed that the warrant should ordinarily be taken at face value.

4. The fresh evidence did not warrant a different conclusion. The expert had not represented the appellant and could not establish whether instructions had been given outside the court proceedings. The hearing minutes therefore carried little weight. A detailed examination of the foreign proceedings, including inferences from the lawyer’s failure to ask questions, would be inconsistent with article 4a of the Amended Framework Decision and the mutual-trust basis of the system.

5. It was unnecessary to decide whether the appellant had deliberately absented himself. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal from the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Clarke ordered extradition to Hungary on 29 May 2025.