Csaba Nemeth v Hungarian Judicial Authorities
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1337/2021, CO/1350/2021 CO/1358/2021, CO/1518/2021, CO/1479/2021 |
[2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/1337/2021, CO/1350/2021 CO/1358/2021, CO/1518/2021, CO/1479/2021
Mary Westcott (instructed by Lawrence & Co) for Csaba Nemeth
Amelia Nice (instructed by Lawrence & Co) for Maria Lakatos
Graeme Hall (instructed by Dalton Holmes Gray) for Marina Horvath
Louisa Collins (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for Maria Horvath
Amanda Bostock (instructed by CPS) for the Requesting State
Hearing date: 9/12/21
Judgment as delivered in open court at the hearing
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: This judgment was produced for the parties, approved by the Judge, after using voice-recognition software during an ex tempore judgment.
A short ruling
In circumstances where this morning's half-day time-slot has needed to be used up with oral representations, I am going to need to keep this ruling short. I am satisfied that I will still be able to give a sufficient explanation of what I have decided and why. Also, I have this in mind. As was common ground at the Bar, and I agree, other matters that have been canvassed today and identified as being on the ‘agenda’ in these informally linked cases will need to be the subject of a subsequent hearing, with a one-day time estimate, and that hearing should be before me. I will call that the ‘reconvened hearing’. Were it to prove necessary and appropriate to give any further reasons to explain anything, I will have an opportunity at a later stage to do that, if invited so to do.
The context
These are linked cases, as a group of cases, but not yet formally the subject of a direction that they be heard together. Now is not the time for such a direction although it is appropriate that they continue to be listed together, as they have been today. This is a series of extradition cases involving accusation EAWs, where extraditions are being sought to Hungary. The cases relate to what the Hungarian prosecutors say is a very serious telephone scam which took place in Hungary but run from the United Kingdom, whereby some 220 elderly victims (between the ages of 70 and 96) at the hands of some 22 perpetrators were scammed into handing over large sums of money which in aggregate amounted to the equivalent of more than £500,000. The cases have been the subject of three judgments in Westminster magistrates' court. There are various applications to appeal and cross-appeal. That is why this judgment, and its title, avoids the words “appellant” and “respondent”. At the reconvened hearing it will be necessary to go into some more detail.
Stay of the Bogdan (s.2/Art 6) issue
My first decision today is that I will stay, on the same terms as I described in the case of Ekwoge v Hungary [2021] EWHC 3163 (Admin) at §2 the section 2/Article 6 ECHR argument raised in the case of Bogdan CO/3601/2021 pending the determination in the High Court of that case. I will need Counsel to liaise please and provide a composite draft Order relating to that stay.
Applications to stay other matters, said to be linked to Bogdan
Next, there are four points which are said to be interrelated with, or whose substance is said to be such as to justify awaiting the determination of, the issue in Bogdan. At the reconvened hearing, I will hear applications for a stay of those four matters, or any of them, until after the determination of Bogdan. If those applications for those stays are refused, there will need then to be directions for those matters to move forward and be determined. Ms Bostock – who opposes the stays – recognises, as do I, that there needs to be a fair opportunity for the requested persons' Counsel to advance their submissions as to why those matters should be stayed. I will hear those submissions next time, at the reconvened hearing. I make clear therefore that the following four points are not currently included within the stay that I have just directed: (1) a point concerning Articles 5 and 6 ECHR and endemic delays; (2) a point concerning the specific position of Roma requested persons; (3) an Article 3 point relating to prison conditions and overcrowding; (4) an Article 3 point relating to prison conditions and monitoring.
No stay of section 12A and Article 8 grounds
I have heard today applications to stay, on the grounds of efficiency, the applications for permission to appeal on grounds relating to section 12A (advanced by Csaba Nemeth and Maria Lakatos) and grounds relating to Article 8 ECHR (advanced by Maria Lakatos and Maria Horvath). What was said by their Counsel, in essence, was that it would make better sense and be a more efficient use of the court time if all of those matters were to await Bogdan and be stayed alongside the Bogdan point (and any other points that are stayed pending the determination of that case). I am quite satisfied that that is not appropriate or justified. This Court should grasp the nettle and will be able to do so at the reconvened hearing, to resolve all of those applications for permission to appeal, without any further delay.
A Covid-related problem
One of the circumstances that had arisen in relation to today's hearing was that one of the key players in the Counsel teams – who was going to be dealing with certain matters – had tested positive for Covid and is unwell. In those circumstances, the remaining Counsel were able to identify progress that could be made in what has been a half-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Csaba Nemeth, Maria Lakatos, Maria Horvath, Persons v Hungarian Judicial Authorities State
...Introduction 1 This is a fourth judgment, following on from three earlier judgments from which the context can be seen. They are: [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin) (9 December 2021); [2022] EWHC 224 (Admin) (3 February 2022); and [2022] EWHC 273 (Admin) (10 February 2022). It deals with the Reque......
-
Csaba Nemeth v Hungarian Judicial Authorities
...a remote hearing. Mr Justice Fordham Introduction 1 I have given four previous judgments in these cases. They are: First Judgment [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin) (9 December 2021); Second Judgment [2022] EWHC 224 (Admin) (3 February 2022); Third Judgment [2022] EWHC 273 (Admin) (10 February 202......
-
CSABA Nemeth v Hungarian Judicial Authorities
...judgment arises out of the Reconvened Hearing which I had described in my first judgment in these cases, on 9 December 2021: see [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin) (the “First Judgment”) at §1. No party has invited further reasons regarding anything dealt with there (see First Judgment §1). There wa......
-
Csaba Nemeth v Hungarian Judicial Authorities
...Mr Justice Fordham Mr Justice Fordham Mr Justice Fordham A Third Judgment 1 This is the third judgment in a sequence. The first was [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin) (“First Judgment”). The second was [2022] EWHC 224 (Admin) (“Second Judgment”) and I am continuing where I left off there (Second Ju......