Background
The appellant, Gabor Gajar, was sought for extradition to Hungary to serve sentences for multiple offences, including driving whilst disqualified. In February 2025, a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition, rejecting challenges based on Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
However, Mr. Gajar was later granted permission to appeal on a new ground after fresh evidence emerged. This evidence consisted of a December 2025 report from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), which detailed disturbing restraint practices in Hungarian prisons. The appeal before the High Court was designated as the lead case concerning these specific issues of Hungarian prison conditions, with other appeals awaiting its outcome.
The Court’s Holding
The appeal centered on a single issue: whether extraditing Mr. Gajar would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of his Article 3 ECHR rights, due to specific restraint methods used in Hungarian prisons. The court’s task was to assess whether the new evidence from the CPT was sufficient to demonstrate such a risk, which had not been considered by the lower court.
The evidence detailed a practice in some Hungarian prisons of placing “violent, agitated or recalcitrant prisoners” in padded cells. This involved stripping them to their underwear and restraining them with hands and ankles cuffed behind their back in a “hogtied” position for up to eight hours, without access to a toilet. The CPT report described these consistent and credible allegations as “totally unacceptable” and potentially amounting to “inhuman and degrading treatment or even torture.” A second practice involved shackling prisoners to beds or other fixed objects, which the CPT also recommended should cease immediately.
In its formal response, the Hungarian government acknowledged these practices, providing statistics on their use. Rather than abolishing them, the authorities stated they had developed new professional protocols and were designing a prototype bed for shackling to standardize the process. The appellant argued this response confirmed the practices were ongoing and systemic, creating a real risk of Article 3 violations. The court had to determine if this evidence rebutted the presumption that Hungary would comply with its ECHR obligations.
Key Takeaways
- UK courts may permit an appeal against an extradition order if fresh evidence emerges showing a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting state’s prisons.
- Reports from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) are considered powerful evidence when assessing prison conditions and potential violations of Article 3 ECHR.
- The use of severe restraint methods, such as “hogtying” a prisoner in a padded cell or shackling them to a fixed object, can be grounds to challenge an extradition, especially if the requesting state has not taken clear steps to abolish the practice.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a critical test of the United Kingdom’s extradition relationship with Hungary and underscores the court’s role as a safeguard against human rights violations. As a “lead appeal,” its judgment is set to have a wide-ranging impact on numerous other cases where individuals face extradition to Hungary, establishing a precedent on whether current Hungarian prison conditions meet the standards required by the ECHR.
The decision highlights the tension between the legal principle of mutual trust among European states and the absolute obligation under Article 3 to protect individuals from torture or inhuman treatment. The court’s detailed examination of the CPT report and Hungary’s official response demonstrates the rigorous scrutiny applied when credible evidence of potential mistreatment arises in extradition proceedings.