Hamvas v Baranya County Court Hungary

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Purdy, given on 16 October 2012, directing the appellant's removal to Hungary to face a charge that he was involved in a murder. The offence itself was committed a very long time ago in 1998 but there was evidence which the District Judge took into account that he had escaped from the jurisdiction. The District Judge heard him give evidence but did not believe his account, essentially that this was not a case of his fleeing the jurisdiction. He went to Sierra Leone for a time and undoubtedly there were real problems in finding where he was, hence the delay in his being traced to this country.

The matters raised below were based both on Article 3 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So far as Article 6 was concerned, that depended upon expert evidence given by Professor Pap, which dealt with concern as to the treatment of some of the judiciary in Hungary by the government now in power. However, Professor Pap was unable to say that the appellant would not have a fair trial on the charge of murder. That ground was not sought to be pursued on appeal in due course.

In fact, the appellant had a representation order but the solicitors (and I should say these were experienced extradition solicitors), having given him advice, applied to the court to come off the record. The court refused that application on the basis that he had been given representation, he had experienced solicitors and counsel who had considered carefully whether there were any arguable grounds. Counsel has appeared before me this morning and has indicated that she is unable to put forward any arguments on behalf of the appellant.

The Article 3 ground was, it seems, based upon the conditions which he would have to face in Hungary were he to be returned. However, it is difficult to see, having regard to the way in which it was dealt with in the judgment of the District Judge, that there was, essentially, anything of real substance in what was argued. In fact, the District Judge, in dealing with the Article 3 ground, took the view, and stated, that it was irresponsible for counsel to advance the Article 3 submissions in the context of this case.

This is, of course, the most serious of offences which this appellant faces and, as I say, there is nothing which, on the face of it, could have been put forward, and counsel has, essentially, confirmed that that is the case. In those circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.

You want the usual order, I imagine?

MS BUCKLEY: Yes, my Lord.