Atilla Norbert Lakatos v Hungarian Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2898 (Admin)
Patricia Lakatos v Four Hungarian Judicial Authorities
9 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2452 (Admin)
High Court
A woman appealed being sent back to Hungary to face charges. The court said the charges were valid in the UK and Hungary, her rights would be protected in Hungary, and sending her back wasn't unfair. So, she'll be extradited to Hungary.
Key Facts
- •Patricia Lakatos appeals an extradition order based on four Hungarian warrants.
- •Warrant 1: Conviction for robbery (6-year sentence, 5 years, 1 day outstanding).
- •Warrant 2B: Conviction for 16 counts of fraud (5-year sentence, 4 years, 4 months, 8 days outstanding).
- •Warrant 3: Accusation for 'escape' from house arrest.
- •Warrant 4: Accusation for four counts of fraud and one attempted fraud.
- •Lakatos was arrested on March 3, 2022, and the extradition hearing was on January 23, 2023.
- •Lakatos argues that the 'escape' charge lacks dual criminality, her retrial rights are not guaranteed, and extradition violates her ECHR rights (Articles 3, 5, 6, 8).
- •New Supreme Court decisions (Bertino and Merticariu) on deliberate absence from trial were considered.
Legal Principles
Dual criminality: The conduct, not the label, must constitute an offense in the UK.
Extradition Act 2003, s 64(3)(b)
Escape from lawful custody: Requires proof of custody, knowledge of custody, lawful custody, and intentional escape.
R v Dhillon [2005] EWCA Crim 2996; E v DPP [2002] EWHC 433 (Admin); Estevez v Court of Mantua (Italy) [2021] EWHC 2069 (Admin)
Deliberate absence from trial (EA 2003, s 20): Requires unequivocal and intentional waiver of the right to be present, with understanding of the consequences; 'extreme' behaviour may suffice.
Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy [2024] UKSC 9; Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania [2024] UKSC 10
Extradition and ECHR: Real risk of violation of Articles 3, 5, and 6 must be shown; strong presumption of compliance by EU member states.
EA 2003, s 21, s 21A; Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 1; Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 489; Krolik v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin)
Proportionality of interference with Article 8 rights in extradition cases.
ECHR Article 8
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found sufficient evidence to satisfy dual criminality for the 'escape' charge, guaranteed retrial rights under s 20, and no violation of ECHR rights.
Ground 1 (dual criminality) rejected.
The court distinguished the case from Estevez, finding sufficient detail in Warrant 3 to show Lakatos was effectively in lawful custody due to the restrictive conditions of her house arrest.
Ground 2 (retrial rights) rejected.
Even if Lakatos did not deliberately absent herself from trial, she has an absolute right to a retrial in Hungary; evidence clearly showed this right was guaranteed.
Grounds 3 and 4 (ECHR Articles 3, 5, 6) rejected.
The court found no new evidence to overturn previous decisions rejecting similar claims regarding the rule of law in Hungary and no specific risk to Lakatos based on her ethnicity or sexual orientation.
Ground 5 (Article 8 proportionality) rejected.
Given the seriousness of the charges against Lakatos, extradition was deemed proportionate.
Similar Cases
János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
KALMAN NEMETH v JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF BUDAPEST, HUNGARY
[2023] EWHC 692 (Admin)
Jeno Zoltan Varga v Regional Court of Budapest, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 253 (Admin)
Marina Horvath v Central District Court of Buda, Hungary
[2024] EWHC 499 (Admin)