János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Miklos Orsos v Tribunal of Pecs Hungary
31 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2766 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Hungary to face criminal charges. He argued that because of his mental health issues and recent events in his life, it would be unfair and unsafe to send him. The judge disagreed, saying his self-harm was more about manipulation and that Hungary would keep him safe. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Miklos Orsos appeals extradition to Hungary based on fresh evidence regarding his mental health.
- •Orsos faces four arrest warrants: two conviction warrants (one for public disorder and criminal damage, one for assaulting an orderly), and two accusation warrants (one for assault on a mother and child, one for assaulting his partner and others).
- •District Judge Leong ordered extradition, finding Orsos's self-harm threats were manipulative and not due to a mental illness.
- •Fresh evidence includes a suicide attempt and the loss of several protective factors (mother's death, loss of children's custody, relationship breakdown).
- •Dr. Reid's updated report indicates a risk of impulsive self-harm, potentially life-threatening, due to Orsos's emotionally unstable personality.
- •The court considers whether the risk of suicide is substantial enough to render extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Legal Principles
Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003: Extradition is unjust or oppressive if the individual's physical or mental condition makes extradition unjust or oppressive.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 25
'Unjust or oppressive' in the context of extradition refers to hardship resulting from the individual's condition in facing proceedings and consequences in another country (oppression) or prejudice in the conduct of the trial (injustice).
Kakis v Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 799; Government of the United States v Assange [2021] EWHC 3313 (Admin)
A high threshold must be met to show extradition is unjust or oppressive due to mental condition. There must be a substantial risk of suicide that cannot be mitigated by preventative measures.
Turner v Government of USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin); Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz [2013] 1 WLR 2402
There's a presumption that an EU country will take proper measures to prevent suicide unless strong evidence suggests otherwise.
Wolkowicz [2013] 1 WLR 2402
Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 governs appeals based on fresh evidence; the evidence must have been unavailable at the hearing and would have altered the outcome.
Extradition Act 2003, Section 26
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The fresh evidence, while showing a risk of impulsive self-harm, did not demonstrate a substantial risk of suicide sufficient to render extradition oppressive. The Judge's original finding that the self-harm was manipulative, rather than due to a serious mental illness, was upheld. The presumption that Hungary would take adequate preventative measures was not rebutted.