Péter Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keith |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1079 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/354/2012,Case No: CO/354/2012 |
| Date | 30 April 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 1079 (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
Judgment in this appeal was handed down on 12 March 2012. The court's judgment dealt with nine of the thirteen offences to which the five warrants for Mr Vörös' extradition to Hungary related. A final order could not be made on the appeal, because it was for the Hungarian authorities to decide which of the four remaining offences they wished to prosecute Mr Vörös for, bearing in mind that (a) the offence in EAW2 was the same offence as the fourth offence in EAW5, and (b) the first offence in EAW4 was the same offence as the first offence in EAW5. The Hungarian authorities were given until 16 April 2012 to notify the Administrative Court Office which of the four offences he was to be prosecuted for.
Two communications have been received from the Hungarian authorities since then. The language of both of them is a little difficult to follow, but their effect, I think, was to confirm that Mr Vörös would not be prosecuted for all four offences. He would only be prosecuted for two of them, but which two he would be prosecuted for and which two would be dropped had not yet been decided. That was because the prosecuting authority which would be making that decision had not yet been identified, and Mr Vörös' presence was required before any decision as to which prosecuting authority would be making the decision could be made. No reason was given for that, but that fact, as well as the fact that one of the prosecuting authorities has said that Mr Vörös needed to be questioned before any decision could be made about which offences he was to be prosecuted for, suggest that Mr Vörös' extradition is still being sought in respect of the four offences, for the purpose of conducting an investigation to decide which two of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borowski v District Court in Bielsko-biala Poland
...identified from a decision of Keith J in Voros v The District Courts in Hungary [2012] EWHC 518 (Admin), and the subsequent decision [2012] EWHC 1079 (Admin), where Keith J had before him a number of warrants, some of which clearly charged identical offences, that is to say there was a real......
-
Jaroslaw Borowski v Regional Court in Wloclawek Poland
...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 relation to exactly the same conduct. His......