The High Court has ordered Sándor Rajki’s surrender to Hungary under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, after rejecting objections based on whether a prosecution decision had been made and on the risk to his rights if returned.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 21 June 2012. Hungary had issued a warrant seeking Mr Rajki’s surrender for prosecution for one alleged offence, described in the warrant as “swindling”. He did not consent to surrender. The court heard the application under section 16 of the Act at a hearing on 1 May 2012.
The judge was satisfied that the warrant had been properly endorsed and executed, that Mr Rajki was the person named in it, and that it met the statutory requirements. The court also found the offence met the minimum-gravity threshold for surrender.
Mr Rajki argued that section 21A required refusal because no decision had been made in Hungary to charge and try him. The judge accepted the statutory presumption that such a decision had been made. Additional information from the Hungarian judicial authority said a criminal prosecution was pending and that the European arrest warrant itself also served as a national arrest warrant. The court found no cogent evidence rebutting the presumption and declined to request further information.
He also objected under section 37, arguing that surrender would expose him to inhuman or degrading prison conditions and breach his family-life rights. In an affidavit, he described overcrowding and conditions during his earlier imprisonment in Hungary, and relied on country reports, Hungarian Prison Service figures and European Court of Human Rights judgments concerning Hungarian prisons. The Hungarian authorities disputed his account and said it exaggerated conditions.
The judge acknowledged evidence of past overcrowding, including findings of Article 3 violations in other cases. But he said the material did not establish the current conditions in prisons in the region where Mr Rajki might be held. The national overcrowding figure of 139% could not show what conditions a particular prisoner would face. The court concluded that the evidence established, at most, a possibility of ill-treatment, not the real risk required to displace the presumption that Hungary would respect his rights. The family-life claim was also found insufficiently supported.
The court therefore rejected both objections and ordered surrender under section 16. The judgment records the order as one the court was “disposed” to make; it does not set out further arrangements or a date for transfer.