Pataki v Circuit Court in Szckszard, Hungary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 307 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/12812/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 22 January 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 307 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
CO/12812/2012
Mr Julian Atlee (instructed by Atlee Chung & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms Hannah Hinton (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Purdy given on 26 November 2012 ordering the appellant's removal to Hungary. The warrants in question required him to serve a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment imposed for what clearly were offences of shoplifting, and also to face trial for another offence of shoplifting allegedly committed in 2009.
He has a singularly unimpressive history, as the District Judge decided, but the only ground raised before me on appeal is that he suffers from pancreatitis and it may well be that he may require an operation.
Mr Atlee seeks to rely on a recent decision of the Divisional Court of which I was a member in the case of Edwards v the United States of America. In that case the court allowed an adjournment, the facts being that the appellant suffered from incipient Alzheimer's, but he had, whilst in custody, thrown fits and it appeared that he might suffer from a form of epilepsy. But the medical evidence was not clear whether his condition was such that it would mean that he was unfit to plead and so unfit to stand trial were he to be extradited to the United States. There being thus a real question as to whether, if the further medical evidence were produced it might say that he was unfit to be removed to stand trial, it was correct to allow an adjournment, the fits having started since the hearing before the District Judge, and so was a new matter.
Mr Atlee seeks to say that he can rely upon that case to justify an adjournment for further evidence in relation to the pancreatitis. I am afraid there is no conceivable similarity in the circumstances of the two cases. There is no possible suggestion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial