Péter Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keith |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 518 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/354/2012,CO/354/2012 |
| Date | 12 March 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 518 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Keith
Case No: CO/354/2012
Mr James Stansfeld (instructed by Lewis Nedas & Co) for the Appellant
Mr Daniel Sternberg (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 1 March 2012
Introduction
1. On 31 August 2011, the appellant, Péter Vörös, was arrested in Leicester pursuant to four European arrest warrants issued by the District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary. The two issued by the District Court of Sopron (“EAW1” and “EAW2”) were issued on 6 May 2011. The one issued by the District Court of Gyor (“EAW3”) was issued on 19 May 2011. The one issued by the District Court of Zalaegerszeg (“EAW4”) was issued on 3 June 2011. The warrants had all been certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”) on 29 August 2011. Mr Vörös was further arrested in London on 13 September 2011 pursuant to another European arrest warrant (“EAW5”) issued by the District Court of Sopron on 17 May 2011. That had been certified by SOCA on 8 September 2011. Extradition hearings took place at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. On 6 January 2012, District Judge Purdy ordered that Mr Vörös be extradited to Hungary pursuant to all five warrants. Mr Vörös now appeals against that order. Ouseley J ordered that the appeal could be heard by a single judge.
2. Hungary has been designated as a category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”). Accordingly, Mr Vörös' extradition is governed by Part 1 of the Act, and the warrants issued by the district courts were Part 1 warrants. The warrants were what are colloquially called accusation warrants. Such a warrant is issued “with a view to [the person's] arrest and extradition … for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence [specified in the warrant]”: see section 2(3)(b) of the Act. The five warrants cover thirteen offences relating to the disposal of cars. EAW1 and EAW2 each relate to a single offence. EAW3 relates to five offences. EAW4 relates to two offences. EAW5 relates to four offences. The grounds of appeal relate to the offences in EAW1 and EAW2, all the offences in EAW3, the first offence in EAW4 and the first and fourth offences in EAW5. It is not suggested that there is any bar to Mr Vörös' extradition for the second offence in EAW4 and the second and third offences in EAW5. The appeal has five strands, which I shall refer to for convenience as lack of particularity (ground 1), dual criminality (ground 2), double jeopardy (ground 3), abuse of process (ground 4) and invalidity (ground 5). I shall deal with grounds 1 and 2 separately, and grounds 3, 4 and 5 together.
Ground 1: Particularity
3. The information which an accusation warrant must contain is that provided for by section 2(4) of the Act. That information is required by section 2(4)(c) to include “particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, [and] the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence …” The giving of this information is critical, because a failure to do so is fatal to a request for extradition. That is the effect of what Lord Hope said in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] AC 1 at [28]:
“If the warrant … does not conform to the requirements set out in section 2, it will not be a Part 1 warrant within the meaning of that section and Part 1 will not apply to it.”
In such circumstances, any order for extradition founded upon it is liable to be quashed. In this ground of appeal, it is contended that the information given in EAW1 and EAW2 does not identify in sufficient detail or with sufficient clarity what Mr Vörös is alleged to have done or the circumstances in which he is alleged to have committed the offences, and that the information relating to the first, second and fifth offences in EAW3 does not identify the place where the offences are alleged to have been committed. No such allegation is made any longer in respect of the particulars given for the offences to which EAW4 and EAW5 relate.
4. The test to be applied is well known, and for present purposes, I need cite only two passages from the authorities. In Gilbert Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin), Cranston J said at [7], of the provision in the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 which section 2(4) of the Act implemented domestically, that the warrant must
“… set out a description, not in legal language, of how the alleged offence is said to have occurred. In particular, the description must include when and where the offence is said to have happened and what involvement the person named in the warrant had … The person sought by the warrant needs … to have an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations against him in relation to that offence. The amount of detail may turn on the nature of the offence.” (Emphasis supplied)
And in Balint v Municipal Court in Prague, Czech Republic [2011] EWHC 498 (Admin), Jackson LJ said at [28] about the information required by section 2(4)(c):
“In examining the conduct alleged in the warrant and any further information the court must not be pedantic or overly technical. Instead, the court must make reasonable allowance for (a) the fact that methods of particularising criminal offences differ from one jurisdiction to another and (b) the fact (if it be the case) that the warrant has been translated from a foreign language into English.”
5. EAW1. The information given in EAW1 about what Mr Vörös is alleged to have done is as follows:
“On 22 July 2008 Imre József Tóth, a resident of Kószeg, concluded loan and option contract No. 2008022097-ZZ with Erste Leasing Car Financing Ltd. for financing the purchase of an Opel Astra H car with traffic registration number LEW-139, effected by him on the same day.
The purchase price of the car was 4,050,000 HUF out of which the person against whom criminal complaint was filed paid 415,000 HUF as own fund to the trader and undertook to pay the outstanding amount of 3,635,000 HUF of the loan within a term of 120 months.
After the conclusion of the contract Imre József Tóth complied with his payment obligations on two occasions and on 16 September 2008 the car was seized in the framework of enforcement proceedings conducted by Asztalos and Co. Bailiff Office (9700 Szombathely, Fó tér 15, 1 st floor 1).
After the seizure of the car in the enforcement proceedings Imre Jószef Tóth did no longer pay any instalment for the loan taken.
In the course of the proceedings Imre József Tóth told that he had no intention to buy a car, according to his knowledge he had signed a loan agreement as a surety for the request of Zoltán Erdélyi, a resident of Szakony. Mr Erdélyi even showed him an employment certificate, according to which he was an employee of a company in Csepreg. At the car trading company in Sopron he had signed several documents which, as he confessed, he had failed to read. He had not seen the car bought by him and had not pay any instalment. He also told that he had neither asked nor received any money from Zoltán Erdélyi or any other person. As to the public notary document No. K22015–0/1013/2008/2/0 he stated that its content was unknown to him and that he had never been to the office of dr Mónika Bálint, notary public.
According to the data obtained, Péter Biró – a resident of Táplánszentkereszt – instituted enforcement proceedings No. 107.V.1655/2008 against in respect of a claim of 1,000,000 HUF. That case concerned an authorisation issued on 17 September 2008 by Imre József Tóth for Péter Vörös, a resident of Ják, authorising Péter Vörös to act for Imre József Tóth with full power in that case.
As to the authorisation of 17 September 2008. presented to him during his interrogation as a consecutive suspect, Imre József Tóth declared that its content and the circumstances of its creation were totally unknown to him and that the authorisation was not signed by him.
Árpád Asztalos independent bailiff sold the car at auction sale held on 24 September 2008.”
6. This passage is not easy to follow, and it only makes sense if one reads into the passage things which are not spelt out in so many words, but in my opinion the warrant can fairly be said to describe the fraud in which Mr Vörös is alleged to have participated as follows. On 22 July 2008 Jószef Tóth signed an agreement with a finance company to purchase an Opel Astra motor car on hire-purchase. He did not realise that that was the agreement he was signing. He thought that he was signing an agreement to act as surety for a loan taken out by someone else. The car was presumably collected by or delivered to whoever was responsible for getting Mr Tóth to sign the agreement. Two of the instalments due under the agreement were paid – presumably by someone purporting to be Mr Tóth – but the car was seized by bailiffs on 16 August 2008 to satisfy a debt allegedly owed by Mr Tóth to Péter Biró. In fact, no such debt was owed, but presumably in order to provide authority for the bailiffs to sell the car, a document purportedly signed on 17 August 2008 by Mr Tóth, but in fact not signed by him, purporting to authorise Mr Vörös to act for him was presented to the bailiffs. The car was eventually sold at auction by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herba v Italian Judicial Authority
...to constitute the offence”. Reliance is placed on Dhar [2012] EWHC 697, Pelka v Poland [2012] EWHC 3989 (Admin), Voros v Hungary [2012] EWHC 518 (Admin), Public Prosecutor's Office Bavaria v Khan [2014] EWHC 1704 (Admin), Muldoon v Spain [2016] EWHC 3689 (Admin), Palar v Court of First Inst......
-
Péter Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
...authorities to confirm which of the duplicate offences in the European arrest warrants the appellant's extradition was sought (see [2012] Extradition LR 135), the case was listed to consider Hungary's response. Judgment: 1 Judgment in this appeal was handed down on 12 March 2012. The court'......
-
Borowski v District Court in Bielsko-biala Poland
...authority was correct, then the problem which was identified from a decision of Keith J in Voros v The District Courts in Hungary[2012] Extradition LR 135, and the subsequent decision [2012] EWHC 1079 (Admin), where Keith J had before him a number of warrants, some of which clearly charged ......
-
Jaroslaw Borowski v Regional Court in Wloclawek Poland
...makes her submissions on the basis of a decision of Keith J in Voros v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary[2012] Extradition LR 135 and [2012] Extradition LR 279. In that case, Keith J was faced with warrants which it was accepted charged the same offence in relati......