![AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Fresh Evidence
Fresh Evidence
Kolompar Witness Statements
Eva and Joszeph Kolompar were the complainants in relation to some of the matters in AW1 in respect of which extradition is sought. There are statements from both of them dated the 7 October 2025 in which they say that they are now reconciled with the requested person. Whilst I have considered this material it does not seem to me that it could possibly have made a difference. The conduct which made up the relevant offences took place in public. This is not civil litigation, and prosecutions are brought by the requesting state in the public interest, not at the behest of individuals.
I therefore refuse the application to rely on these witness statements as fresh evidence.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Arrest Warrants
- AW 2
- The Extradition Hearing
- The Appeal/Application
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 2 – Section 25 in respect of AW 1 and AW 2
- Ground 3 – Section 21A / Article 8 ECHR in respect of AW1 and AW2
- The Appellant’s Health
- Fugitivity
- Delay
- Gravity of Offending
- Impact on Family
- Overall Conclusion on Article 8 grounds
- Ground 4 - AW2 whether disproportionate section 21A(1)(b)
- Seriousness of the Conduct ( Section 21 A(3)(a))
- Likely Penalty ( Section 21 A(3)(b))
- Less Coercive Measures ( Section 21 A(3)(c))
- Conclusions
- Ground 1 – Section 12A in respect of AW 2 only: absence of a decision to charge or try
- Discussion and Conclusion
- Fresh Evidence
- Conclusions