Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns a statutory appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Evans, who ordered the extradition of the Appellant to Hungary to face trial for alleged offences of sexual assault on a child under 12 and abuse of a minor, relating to the Appellant's daughters. Shortly after the notice of appeal was lodged, due to an administrative error by British authorities, the Appellant was returned to Hungary, where he remains on remand. The Appellant contends that this erroneous removal did not extinguish his statutory right of appeal and that the court should hear the appeal on its merits. The Respondent agreed to proceed first on the merits of the appeal without conceding the jurisdictional point.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the Hungarian court was validly issued for the purpose of the Appellant being prosecuted within the meaning of section 2(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Whether the offences of "abuse of a minor" alleged against the Appellant constitute extradition offences within section 64(3) of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The EAW was not issued for prosecution purposes but for conducting an investigation, thus failing to comply with section 2(3)(b) and rendering it invalid.
• The offences of "abuse of a minor" are not extradition offences under section 64(3) of the Act as they may not involve sexual abuse or fall within the framework list.

Respondent's Arguments

• The EAW was clearly issued for the purpose of prosecution, not merely investigation.
• The conduct described, even if non-sexual, would amount to offences under English law such as cruelty to a child or common assault, thus satisfying the co-criminality requirement under section 64(3).
• Additional documents from the Hungarian Prosecutor General's Office demonstrate that criminal proceedings have commenced and the Appellant is sought for prosecution, not just questioning.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining whether the EAW was validly issued for prosecution purposes under section 2(3)(b) of the Act. It emphasized that the wording of the warrant must be considered as a whole, adopting a cosmopolitan approach that respects differences in foreign legal systems rather than applying a purely English criminal procedure lens. The court noted that while the front page of the EAW included both prosecution and sentence alternatives without deleting the inapplicable one, this alone does not invalidate the warrant.

The court reviewed the detailed description of offences in the warrant and found it clearly identified the Appellant as an accused person sought for prosecution, not merely investigation. It rejected the Appellant's attempt to rely on extrinsic evidence suggesting the purpose was only questioning, as this was contrary to the Framework Decision's aim of clarity and simplicity and the statutory scheme.

Regarding the second issue, the court considered whether the offences of "abuse of a minor" met the co-criminality requirement under section 64(3) of the Act. The court accepted the Respondent's submission that even if the abuse was non-sexual, it would constitute cruelty to a child or common assault under English law, thus satisfying the extradition offence criteria.

Overall, the court applied established case law to confirm that the EAW was valid and the offences were extradition offences, dismissing the Appellant's arguments on both points.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to DISMISS the appeal against the extradition order made by the District Judge. The Appellant’s statutory right to appeal was preserved despite his erroneous removal to Hungary, and the court found the EAW validly issued for prosecution purposes and the offences extradition offences under the Act.

The direct effect of this decision is that the extradition order stands and the Appellant remains subject to extradition proceedings. The court did not establish new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles on the interpretation of EAWs and the application of the Extradition Act 2003 in line with the Framework Decision.