Sandor Atilla Rumpler v The Regional Court in Budapest, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 258 (Admin)
KALMAN NEMETH v JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF BUDAPEST, HUNGARY
28 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 692 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was wanted in Hungary for robbery. A UK court had to decide if the Hungarian authorities had decided to charge and try him, and if not, was his being in the UK the only reason. The court said yes to one or the other, and so he can be sent back to Hungary.
Key Facts
- •Kalman Nemeth (Appellant) is wanted for extradition to Hungary for a knifepoint robbery in 2016.
- •A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued in 2019, and Nemeth was arrested in the UK in 2020.
- •The District Judge ordered extradition, a decision appealed by Nemeth.
- •The appeal centers on whether extradition is barred under s.12A of the Extradition Act 2003 due to an 'absence of prosecution decision'.
- •Hungary is a Category 1 territory.
- •Nemeth claims he arrived in the UK a few days before the alleged offence, which the Judge rejected.
- •The key legal issue is whether the Hungarian authorities made decisions to charge and try Nemeth, and if his absence was the sole reason for any delay.
Legal Principles
Section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 bars extradition if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the competent authorities in the requesting state have not made a decision to charge or try the requested person, and their absence is not the sole reason for this failure. The requesting state must prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
Extradition Act 2003, s.12A
The 'decision to charge' means deciding there's sufficient evidence to allege a crime, while 'decision to try' means deciding to proceed to trial. These decisions don't need to be formal.
Puceviciene v Lithuania [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
A cosmopolitan approach is needed, accommodating the criminal procedures of other countries. The relevant time for assessing whether decisions have been made is the time of the judge's decision.
Puceviciene v Lithuania [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
The purpose of s.12A is to ensure individuals are tried expeditiously after surrender, preventing lengthy pre-trial detention while investigations continue without charging and trial decisions.
Puceviciene v Lithuania [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the Hungarian authorities had made both the decision to charge and the decision to try, or that Nemeth's absence was the sole reason for any delay. The judge's initial findings were reviewed and affirmed.
Similar Cases
Mykhailo Kozak v BUDA Central District Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 149 (Admin)
János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Patricia Lakatos v Four Hungarian Judicial Authorities
[2024] EWHC 2452 (Admin)
Jeno Zoltan Varga v Regional Court of Budapest, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 253 (Admin)