Amelia Nice secures discharge for extradition request
AH v Hungary, July 2024
On 11 July 2024, District Judge Curtis discharged an extradition request which related to a female requested person, AH, sought by Hungary in relation to theft offences.
AH had initially travelled to this country with her baby daughter 3 years ago. Not long after her arrival, she had been coerced into sexual exploitation which had lasted for two years. In the interim, she had been arrested on the first of two extradition requests. She was bailed back to the exploitative location (then unbeknownst to the court). AH tried to escape on two occasions but was found and returned by one of the abusers. On the third occasion she managed to leave and handed herself in to police. Subsequent to her arrest on the extradition request, AH’s daughter was taken into foster care. By the time of the extradition hearing, the family court was considering placement of AH’s daughter for adoption.
During the extradition proceedings, AH’s extradition legal team made a trafficking referral to the National Referral Mechanism, the framework for identifying victims of human trafficking or modern slavery and ensuring they receive appropriate support. The UK has a two-stage procedure provided for in the NRM to determine whether someone was a victim of human trafficking: an initial decision on whether there are Reasonable Grounds to believe that the person is a victim, and a subsequent Conclusive Grounds decision. By the time of the extradition hearing a ‘Reasonable Grounds’ decision had made. As a result of this background, the case was anonymised under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
AH submitted that her discharge should be ordered on the basis of section 21A proportionality; section 21A Article 8, given the exceptionally severe consequences extradition would give rise to and noting the potential impact on her daughter, in particular; and, section 25 on account of her very poor physical and mental health which included conditions linked to serious liver disease issues, major depression and PTSD. It was also argued that extradition pending a positive Conclusive Grounds decision by the NRM would give rise to a breach of Article 4 (the prohibition of slavery and forced labour). Extradition prior to such a decision would breach Article 4 given the live investigation into the RP’s potential status as a victim of modern slavery and any subsequent investigation into the criminal behaviour of her abusers. [See, MS (Pakistan) [2020] UKSC 9]. Amongst other things, the court’s attention was drawn to the legal and policy commitments to ending violence against women, including sexual exploitation.
Judge Curtis noted the submissions were “compelling” and discharged the request. The CPS did not appeal and accordingly, extradition was refused.
AH was represented by Amelia Nice instructed by Katy O’Mara at Hodge Jones and Allen.
