Sandor Atilla Rumpler v The Regional Court in Budapest, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 258 (Admin)
Jeno Zoltan Varga v Regional Court of Budapest, Hungary
9 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 253 (Admin)
High Court
Mr. Varga didn't want to go back to Hungary to finish his prison sentence, so he ran away to the UK. The court said he was a runaway and had to go back to serve his time. His reasons for staying in the UK weren't strong enough to stop the extradition.
Key Facts
- •Jeno Zoltan Varga (Appellant) appeals extradition to Hungary for three offenses: theft of a handbag (Offence 1), theft of a phone (Offence 2 - accomplice), and theft of cash and documents (Offence 3).
- •Sentences totaled 3 years, 9 months; 3 years, 8 months, and 9 days remained.
- •Appellant fled to the UK in October 2019 after the sentences were activated.
- •Appellant argues insufficient particulars for Offence 2 and that the public interest in extradition does not outweigh his Article 8 rights.
- •Appellant was found to be a fugitive from justice by the District Judge.
- •Appellant argues he was not a fugitive because he provided his UK address and was not under an immediate obligation to return to Hungary.
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003, Section 2: Arrest warrant must contain particulars of the conviction and circumstances of the offense.
Extradition Act 2003
Extradition Act 2003, Section 10(2) & 65(3)(b): Dual criminality – the foreign offense must be an extradition offense; conduct would constitute an offense under UK law.
Extradition Act 2003
Article 8 ECHR: Proportionality test – interference with private and family life must be outweighed by public interest in extradition.
Article 8 ECHR
Fugitive status must be proved to the criminal standard; question is whether the requested person deliberately placed themselves beyond the reach of the legal process.
Various case law (Versluis, De Zorzi, Makowska)
Delay since the crimes may diminish the weight of the public interest and increase the impact on private and family life; analysis is fact-specific.
Various case law (H(H), Stryecki, Vajdik)
In an Article 8 case, the appeal court must show the district judge misapplied legal principles, made an unreasonable finding of fact, failed to consider relevant factors, or reached an irrational conclusion.
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the particulars of the offense were sufficient to meet the dual criminality requirement and that the judge did not err in finding the appellant a fugitive, and that the public interest in extradition outweighed the appellant’s Article 8 rights.
Ground 1 (insufficient particulars/dual criminality) fails.
The arrest warrant sufficiently detailed the Appellant's knowing assistance in the crime, satisfying the dual criminality requirement.
Ground 2 (Article 8) fails.
The Judge’s finding that the appellant was a fugitive was supported by the evidence, and the delay did not outweigh the public interest in extradition given the appellant’s weak Article 8 claim and his fugitive status.