Posted in Notable Cases on January 30, 2013
BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT
Hungary v Fenyvesi (2009) EWHC 231 (Admin), (2009) 4 All ER 324
The principal of Ashmans Solicitors represented RF who is a Hungarian Roma with the use of an expert barrister extradition was discharged on grounds of extraneous considerations and found to be incompatible with his rights under Articles 3 and 6, European Court of Human Rights..
The District judge at the city of Westminster magistrates found that if RF returned there was a real risk of inhumane or degrading treatment and denial of fair a trial.
This matter was appealed by the Hungarian judicial Authorities to the High Court, Queens Bench Division.
On Appeal the Hungarian judicial Authorities tried to adduce fresh evidence to rebut what had been said by RF.
The Queen's Bench Division of the Administrative Court: ruled that in a case where the district judge had discharged six arrest warrants in relation to the first and second respondents, who were ethnically of Roma origin and culture, where their extradition was sought, the appellant Hungarian authorities could not subsequently adduce fresh evidence since it would not have been decisive; moreover, it was evidence that could have been adduced before the judge.
The principal of Ashmans and the instructed barrister succeeded in helping the client to secure his freedom. This case is now an important principle where foreign Judicial authorities try to adduce fresh evidence. This principle is still cited in extradition cases.