Extradition appeal dismissed for Richard Balasz

Extradition Appeal Dismissed for Richard Balasz

The High Court has dismissed the appeal of Richard Balasz against his extradition to Hungary, where he faces a five-year prison sentence for extortion. The case was presided over by Fordham J, who delivered the judgment remotely, concluding that the extradition was neither unjust nor oppressive.

Richard Balasz, aged 34, was subject to an Extradition Arrest Warrant (AW2) issued by Hungary for a conviction of extortion committed between November 2012 and November 2013. He was convicted in absentia in 2016, and the conviction became final in 2017. Balasz had been on bail in the UK since April 2023, following his arrest in February 2023.

The appeal raised three primary grounds: the right to a retrial under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, the argument that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time under section 14, and the claim that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Fordham J considered fresh evidence, including the fact that Balasz's partner is expecting their first child, due in March 2025. This development prompted a reassessment of the Article 8 and section 14 considerations. However, the court found that the public interest in upholding extradition and treaty obligations outweighed the personal circumstances of Balasz and his family.

The court also addressed concerns about the fairness of a retrial in Hungary. Fordham J was satisfied that Balasz would be entitled to a retrial upon his return, dismissing arguments about potential delays and procedural issues. The judge noted that the Hungarian authorities had confirmed the retrial would be mandatory and that Balasz would have the opportunity to defend himself.

In examining the passage of time, the court acknowledged the significant delay since the original offence and conviction. However, it found no culpable delay on the part of the Hungarian authorities, noting that Balasz's whereabouts were unknown to them for a substantial period.

While the court recognised the hardship that extradition would cause to Balasz's partner and their unborn child, it concluded that these factors did not outweigh the serious nature of the offence and the public interest in extradition. The judgment emphasised the need to uphold international agreements and prevent the UK from becoming a safe haven for individuals avoiding justice.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds, with the court agreeing to a deferred extradition window to allow Balasz to be present for the birth of his child. The case underscores the complexities involved in balancing individual rights against international legal obligations in extradition proceedings.

Learn More

For more information on UK extradition law, see BeCivil's guide to Extradition Law.