Patricia Lakatos v Four Hungarian Judicial Authorities

Hearing dates: 16 July 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30 on 9 October 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

This is an appeal under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). The Appellant's Notice was in proper form, however the order granting permission refers to permission to seek judicial review having been granted. This was plainly a slip, and so pursuant to my case management powers under the CPR and Crim PR, I treat the order as an order granting permission to appeal under Part 1 on all grounds. No party took a point on this, and the case was argued on that basis.

The appeal is brought against the extradition order made by District Judge King on 23 March 2023.

The grounds of appeal advanced by the Appellant depend in part on material that was not before the district judge. I considered this material de bene esse at the hearing.

Background

These extradition proceedings have been brought as a result of four Part 1 warrants issued in Hungary. These are as follows.

Warrant 1 — Szy.5256201512: a conviction warrant dated 17 March 2017, issued by a judge of the Budapest Regional Court in Hungary. The warrant was certified by the National Crime Agency on 16 March 2021.

The Appellant's extradition is sought in order to serve a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment of which there is a period of five years and one day outstanding. This was imposed on 13 March 2015, ruled final and binding on 25 November 2015.

Box D indicates that the conviction was imposed in the Appellant's presence.

The conviction was imposed for one offence of robbery committed on 14 August 2012. It is said that the Appellant was part of a group who took advantage of the victim while she was unconscious, having consumed an unknown drink from a bottle provided by one of the co-defendants, and then stealing personal items from her flat, including cash and jewellery.

The Appellant was held in pre-trial detention between 28 November 2012 and 25 November 2013.

Warrant 2B — 7zv 3334/2020/17: a conviction warrant dated 13 October 2022, which replaced an earlier accusation warrant (hence my calling it Warrant 2B) concerning the same conduct. It was issued by a judge of the District Court of Pest in Hungary. The Part 1 warrant was certified by the NCA on 29 October 2022.

The Appellant's extradition is sought in order to serve a sentence of five years' imprisonment of which there is a period of four years, four months and eight days outstanding. This was imposed on 23 September 2020.

The conduct giving rise to the conviction regards 16 offences of fraud. There is a summary of the way the fraud operated given at box E as follows:

“From among the accused persons, the 1 ^st accused HERSICS, Atilla rented the municipal rental apartment [address given] with his domestic partner, the 4 ^th accused LAKATOS, Patricia; and this apartment was the temporary residence also for the 2 ^nd accused LAKATOS, Maria and the 6 ^th accused SZAUER, Szuszanna in autumn 2014. Additionally, the 3 ^rd accused HORVATH, Veronika and the 7 ^th accused ANDRASI, Sandor stayed in this apartment on a daily basis.

The accused persons decided June 2014 and November 2014 that they would try to make a financial gain from appropriating various valuables from elderly people who live in the area of Budapest, doing so by pretending to be police officers (and a doctor, in one case) and so entering the victims' apartments on the grounds that some valuables threatened by theft in a currently ongoing criminal procedure needed to be surveyed; and then calling upon the victims to present the jewellery and cash in their possession, and then leaving with the collected valuables after diverting the victims' attention.”

Thereafter, the specific instances of fraud/theft are set out on specific dates in June – November 2014. The Appellant was almost always acting as the look out while other members of the group were carrying out the distraction or attempted distraction.

Warrant 3 — 18.Bny.176320172: an accusation warrant dated 15 May 2017, issued by a judge of the Central District Court of Buda in Hungary. It was certified by the NCA on 16 March 2021.

The Appellant is wanted to face prosecution for an offence of ‘escape’. The Appellant was subject to bail conditions which included wearing a tagging device. She was under house arrest and not permitted to leave the address in question without permission. She is said to have removed it on 1 December 2015 and then left for an unknown place. This occurred during the investigation for offences of theft. She had been bailed on 12 May 2015 until 12 January 2016.

A domestic arrest warrant was issued by police on 19 January 2016 and approved by the prosecutor on 10May 2017.

Warrant 4 — 3.Bny.15/2021: an accusation warrant dated 19 March 2021, issued by an investigative judge of the District Court of Eger in Hungary. This warrant was certified by the NCA on 16 April 2021.

The Appellant is wanted to face prosecution for four offences of fraud and one attempted fraud. The alleged offences involved the Appellant along with two accomplices making telephone calls from the UK to elderly victims in Hungary, pretending to be relatives who have been injured in car accidents, needing money to pay for the damage or avoid court procedure. Other accomplices were operating in Hungary and obtained money and valuable items from the victims and then transferred the funds back to the UK, after taking a cut for their fee. On one occasion, the money was not obtained and is therefore classed as an attempt. These offences took place in December 2019 and January 2020. The stolen monies were retrieved though seizure.

Extradition proceedings

The Appellant was arrested pursuant to the four warrants on 3 March 2022. An initial hearing was conducted on 4 March 2022.

As I have indicated the second of these warrants (an accusation warrant, Warrant 2) was replaced by a conviction warrant (Warrant 2B). She was arrested on that second warrant on the day of the final hearing (23 January 2023).

The Appellant has been remanded in custody since her arrest on 3 March 2022.

The extradition hearing took place on 23 January 2023. Extradition was ordered on all four warrants on 23 March 2023.

Grounds of appeal

Pursuant to s 26 of the EA 2003, the Appellant appeals against the extradition order on the following grounds (Skeleton Argument, [26]):

a. Ground 1 (s 10): the district judge erred in concluding that the offence of ‘escape’ in Warrant 3 satisfies the dual criminality requirements and so is not an extradition offence as required by s 10.

b. Ground 2 (s 20): the judge erred in concluding that the Appellant will be guaranteed adequate retrial rights to satisfy the requirements under s 20(8) in respect of Warrant 2B. (Warrant 1 is also a conviction warrant but the Appellant was present at her trial so s 20 does not arise).

c. Ground 3 (s 21 and 21A/Article 3 of the ECHR): the judge erred in rejecting the argument that the Appellant's particular characteristics places her at a real risk of mistreatment contrary to Article 3 within the prison system because it what is said to be the undermining of the rule of law which cannot be adequately addressed through the assurance provided.

d. Ground 4 (s 21 and 21A/Articles 5 and 6): the judge erred in rejecting the argument that the Appellant is also at real risk of an unfair trial and deprivation of liberty contrary to Articles 5 and 6 on the basis of her particular personal characteristics which place her in a category vulnerable to discrimination, again because of a break down in the rule of law in Hungary.

e. Ground 5: (s 21 and 21A/Article 8): the judge erred in concluding that extradition would be a proportionate interference with the Appellant's Article 8 rights. This ground was predicated on there being further medical evidence, which in the event did not materialise. Ms Collins therefore put this ground on the basis that if any of the warrants fell away, in particular on Ground 1, I should re-take the Article 8 balancing exercise for myself.

Powers of the High Court on an appeal under Part 1

These are well-established and I need not set out the detail.

In summary: the appeal is brought under s 26; under s 27 I can allow or dismiss the appeal on the basis there set out (in essence, that the district judge should have answered a question arising under Part 1 at the extradition hearing differently and had s/he done so, they would have been bound to order the defendant's discharge). An appeal may also be allowed on the basis of an issue or evidence not raised before the district judge according to the conditions in s 27(4).

The general test on appeal is whether the district judge was ‘wrong’ on the issue concerned: see Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), [22]–[26].

However, where fresh evidence is involved, or the law has moved on, or the offences for which extradition is sought have narrowed, I have to make my own assessment de novo, on the material as it now stands, in order to determine whether extradition is barred on one or more of the grounds set out in Part 1 of the EA 2003.

The de novo test in such cases is established by decisions such as Olga C v The Prosecutor...