Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Year | 2011 |
| Date | 2011 |
Extradition - Extradition offence - European arrest warrant - Warrant not specifying on first page whether requested person’s extradition sought for purpose of prosecution or of sentence - Whether issued with view to requested person’s surrender “for the purpose of being prosecuted” - Whether valid -
The appellant was arrested in the United Kingdom on the authority of an European arrest warrant issued in Hungary, a category 1 territory to which Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003F1 applied. The frontispiece of the warrant contained a declaration requesting that the appellant be arrested and surrendered “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order”. The district judge ordered the appellant’s extradition. The appellant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the warrant had not been issued with a view to his arrest and extradition “for the purpose of being prosecuted”, within the meaning of section 2(3)(b) of the 2003 Act, but had been issued for the purpose of conducting an investigation, and therefore was not a valid European arrest warrant.
On the appeal—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the fact that inapplicable wording had not been deleted from the front page of an European arrest warrant did not in itself render it invalid for the purposes of section 2(2) of the 2003 Act; that when deciding whether such a warrant had been issued for the purpose of the requested person being prosecuted for the offences identified, within section 2(3)(b) of the 2003 Act, the court would look at the wording of the warrant as a whole and not confine itself to its first page, which might be equivocal; that the court had to construe the words in section 2(3) in a cosmopolitan sense and not just in terms of the stages of English criminal procedure; that if the warrant used the phrases which were used in the English language version of the European arrest warrant annexed to the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states there should be no, or very little, scope for argument on the purpose of the warrant; that only if the wording of the warrant were equivocal should the court consider, as a measure of last resort, examination of extrinsic factual or expert evidence to determine the purpose of the warrant; that it was clear on the face of the warrant that the appellant was accused of the commission of offences specified in the warrant, for the purposes of section 2(3)(a), and that his extradition had been requested for the purpose of his being prosecuted, for the purposes of section 2(3)(b), and not just for questioning; and that, accordingly, the warrant complied with the requirements of section 2(3) of the 2003 Act and was valid (post, paras 15, 38, 43, 49, 55).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court:
Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid
Harvey v Judicial Authority of Portugal—Tribunal Judicial de Albufeira
Ismail, In re [
Johnson v Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille, France
King’s Prosecutor, Brussels, Office of the v Cando Armas
Loucks v Standard Oil Co of New York (
McCormack v Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper, France
Paschayan v Government of Switzerland
R (Trenk) v Plzen-Mesto District Court, Czech Republic
Thompson v Public Prosecutor of Boulogne-sur-Mer
Vey v Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montluçon, France
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Crean v Government of Ireland
Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland
Fofana v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux, France
Hewitt v First Instance and Magistrates’ Court Number One of Denia, Spain
Islam v Paphos District Court of Cyprus
Lacorre v High Instance Court of Paris
Mohamed v President of the Republic of South Africa
Norris v Government of the United States of America (Goldshield Group plc intervening)
Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland
Pupino, Criminal Proceedings against
R v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Government of Germany [
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Norgren [
R (Hilali) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)
R (McGoldrick) v Central Court of Pest, Hungary
United States of America (Government of the) v McCaffery [
APPEAL from District Judge Evans sitting at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
The appellant, Balazs Asztaslos, appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the order of District Judge Evans, sitting at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 September 2009 that he be extradited to Hungary to stand trial for one alleged offence of sexual assault on a child under the age of 12 and two alleged offences of abuse of a minor, following the issue by Szekszard City Court, Hungary on 26 May 2008 of an European arrest warrant. The grounds of appeal were that (1) the arrest warrant did not comply with the requirements of section 2(3)(a)(b) of the 2003 Act and was not therefore a Part 1 arrest warrant within the meaning of that expression in the Act; and (2) some of the offences under Hungarian law for which the appellant’s surrender was sought, namely those which alleged “abuse of a minor”, were not “extradition offences” within the meaning of section 64(3) of the 2003 Act.
The facts are stated in the judgment of the court.
James Lewis QC and Daniel Jones (instructed by
Gemma Lindfield (instructed by
The court took time for consideration.
12 February 2010. AIKENS LJ handed down the following judgment of the court.
1 This is the judgment of the court to which each of us has contributed.
2 This is a statutory appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”), against the decision of District Judge Evans, given on 2 September 2009, by which he ordered the extradition of the appellant Balazs Asztaslos to Hungary to face trial for one alleged offence of sexual assault on a child under the age of 12 and two alleged offences of abuse of a minor. The alleged offences concern the appellant’s daughters.
3 Shortly after the notice of appeal was lodged, seemingly as the result of a most regrettable administrative error on the part of the British authorities, the appellant was sent back to Hungary. He remains in Hungary where he is held on remand in relation to the criminal proceedings for which his extradition was requested. On the appellant’s behalf it is argued that the erroneous removal of the appellant did not extinguish his statutory right of appeal and that the court should hear the appeal in the normal way. Certainly it would be most unjust if he were to be deprived of his right of appeal by an error on the part of the British authorities when an appeal was pending. Miss Lindfield, on behalf of the Hungarian authority, without conceding the point of principle, has agreed that we should first hear the case on its merits, because she agrees that if the appeal is dismissed on its merits, there is no need to rule upon the point of jurisdiction. That is what we shall do.
4 On behalf of the appellant, Mr James Lewis QC takes two points. First, he submits that the European arrest warrant (“EAW”) that was issued on 26 May 2008 by the Szekszard City Court in Hungary, was not issued for the purposes of Mr Asztaslos being prosecuted within the meaning of section 2(3)(b) of the Act. Secondly, Mr Lewis submits that some of the offences under Hungarian law for which the appellant is sought are not “extradition offences” within section 64(3) of the Act. Mr Lewis had originally proposed to argue further points but we understood during argument that those are not now to be pursued.
Issue one: the validity of the EAW—was it issued for the purpose of the appellant being prosecuted?5 Mr Lewis argues that the EAW was not issued for the purpose of conducting a prosecution but for the purpose of conducting an investigation. He submits that the EAW therefore failed to comply with the requirements of section 2(3)(b) of the Act and consequently it is not a valid EAW within Part 1 of the Act. For the Hungarian authority Miss Lindfield argues that it is clear that the EAW was issued for the purpose of the appellant being prosecuted and not simply to enable him to be questioned further with a view to his possible prosecution.
6...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Steven Woodbridge v The Head Attorney General of the District of Moenchengladbach, Germany
...Hence the requirement in section 2(3)(b)." 12 Aikens LJ reviewed the authorities on section 2(3) of the Act in Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary, [2011] 1 WLR 252. He stated (at [19]): "first, the phrases "is accused … of the commission of an offence" in paragraph (a), and "for the ......
-
Péter Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
...[in which case] the warrant is not a [valid warrant] within the meaning of section … 2(3)” ( per Aikens LJ in Asztaslos v The Szekszand City Court, Hungary [2011] 1 WLR 252 at [16]), it follows that EAW2, EAW4 and EAW5 were not valid warrants to the extent that they seek Mr Vörös' extraditi......
-
Brian Powney v District Court of Ljubljana, Slovenia
...a very heavy work load of cases and hearings." 9 It is appropriate also to refer to the decision of a Divisional Court in Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary [2011] I WLR 252 in which the court was considering section 2 of the 2003 Act. Aikens LJ, giving the judgment of the court, sum......
-
Shiraz Ahmed v Swedish Economic Crime Authority
...purpose for which the EAW was issued in the way that this court in Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court Hungary [2010] EWHC 237 (Admin), [2011] 1 WLR 252 at [38(6)] said should not happen. Indeed, the written and oral submissions on behalf of the appellant sought to do this by transposing term......
