János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Marina Horvath v Central District Court of Buda, Hungary
13 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 499 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was fighting extradition to Hungary. A judge said it was wrong not to consider new evidence about whether the Hungarian courts are fair to Roma people. But the judge decided the new evidence wasn't strong enough to change the outcome, so the extradition was still allowed.
Key Facts
- •Marina Horvath appealed extradition to Hungary on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering.
- •The extradition was initially blocked by District Judge Fanning due to Article 8 ECHR concerns.
- •The Respondent appealed, and Lane J remitted the case to District Judge Griffiths.
- •District Judge Griffiths refused an application to adduce fresh evidence regarding Roma discrimination in Hungary.
- •Horvath appealed this refusal to Knowles J.
- •The appeal was framed initially as a statutory appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 but was treated as judicial review by Knowles J.
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) Part 1 statutory appeals: The High Court can only allow an appeal if the district judge should have decided a question differently and if that would have resulted in the person's discharge (s.27(3)).
Extradition Act 2003
Judicial Review: The court can treat a statutory appeal as an application for judicial review if the decision under challenge would not have led to the applicant's discharge (s.27(3) cannot be met).
Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin), Celczynski v Polish Judicial Authority (No 1) [2020] 4 WLR 21
Remitted extradition hearings: On remittal, the district judge must proceed as if the relevant question had been decided differently at the initial hearing, and cannot typically consider new issues or evidence.
Dempsey v Government of the United States of America [2020] 1 WLR 3103, Gurau (Suceava District Court, Romania v Gurau [2023] 1 WLR 2813
Fresh evidence in remitted extradition hearings: A district judge may consider fresh evidence on an issue previously argued, if that evidence might be decisive (per Gurau). The evidence must meet the standards set out in Zabolotnyi and Fenyvesi (decisive and relevant).
Gurau [2023] 1 WLR 2813, Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] 1 WLR 2569, Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] 4 All ER 324
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A): The High Court must refuse relief if the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred; there is a high threshold for applying this provision.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
The appeal (treated as judicial review) was dismissed.
While District Judge Griffiths wrongly refused to consider fresh evidence, the additional evidence was unlikely to change the outcome. The European Parliament resolution cited did not undermine previous findings of sufficient judicial independence and lack of real risk of prejudice due to Horvath’s Roma ethnicity.
Similar Cases
Atilla Norbert Lakatos v Hungarian Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2898 (Admin)
KALMAN NEMETH v JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF BUDAPEST, HUNGARY
[2023] EWHC 692 (Admin)
Patricia Lakatos v Four Hungarian Judicial Authorities
[2024] EWHC 2452 (Admin)
Sandor Atilla Rumpler v The Regional Court in Budapest, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 258 (Admin)