János Orsós v Dr Antal Gábor, Penitentiary Judge at the Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
[2023] EWHC 3089 (Admin)
Zoltan Veres v Pécs Regional Court, Hungary
4 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2790 (Admin)
High Court
A dad was convicted in Hungary and didn't want to go back to prison, claiming it would hurt his family too much. A judge initially said he had to go. He tried to introduce new evidence about his family's mental health, but the judge decided the evidence wasn't strong enough to change the decision, so the dad still has to go to Hungary to serve his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Veres appeals a decision ordering his extradition to Hungary to serve a prison sentence.
- •He was convicted on three warrants for drug possession, attempted burglary, and burglary.
- •He argued that extradition would disproportionately impact his family's Article 8 ECHR rights.
- •The District Judge ordered extradition, weighing the public interest in returning convicted persons against the family's Article 8 rights.
- •Mr. Veres sought to introduce new evidence showing the deterioration of his wife's and children's mental health.
- •The new evidence included addendum reports from Dr. Birch and a witness statement from Mr. Veres.
Legal Principles
Proportionality assessment in Article 8 ECHR extradition cases requires balancing factors for and against extradition.
Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
On appeal, the court determines if the District Judge made the wrong decision, considering if the conclusion was the only possible view, a right view, a view with doubts but ultimately right, a view where right or wrong cannot be determined, a view with doubts but ultimately wrong, a wrong view, or an unsupportable view.
Re B [2013] UKSC 33
The Fenyvesi test for admitting fresh evidence requires that the evidence didn't exist at the time of the hearing or wasn't reasonably obtainable, and that the evidence would have changed the outcome.
Szombathely City Court (Hungary) v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin)
Outcomes
Mr. Veres' appeal dismissed.
The District Judge's decision was not wrong. While the new evidence showed potential family hardship, it wasn't sufficiently robust to outweigh the public interest in extradition, and did not meet the Fenyvesi test for admissibility. The evidence lacked independent corroboration and didn't fully address the family's dynamic.
Applications to admit new evidence refused.
The evidence, while showing deterioration in family mental health, was deemed equivocal due to lack of independent verification, potential influence from parents, and insufficient explanation for the absence of other professional involvement. It did not meet the threshold for altering the outcome under the Fenyvesi test.