AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)

The Appellant submitted that the Judge erred in her finding of fugitivity. The Judge had to be sure to the criminal standard before she could make such a finding. There was, it was argued, no evidence produced from the JA to indicate that the Appellant had deliberately and knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the legal process, as per De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin). The Appellant was subject to a suspended sentence. There was no information as to any obligations attached to the suspended sentence. Whilst he was arrested in respect of the AW2 matters and interviewed, he had no reason to believe that his suspended sentence would be activated at that time.

However, the Judge made a clear finding of fact in relation to the issue of fugitivity which turned largely on the Appellant’s evidence at the hearing [22]:

“I find the RP is a fugitive. The RP admitted in cross-examination he was aware he was subject to a suspended sentence and aware that the authorities could not find him if he was moving from address to address. He admitted he had been arrested in respect of the December 2018 offending, was aware that the Hungarian police did not believe his account but denied that he had left the jurisdiction to evade proceedings stating he believed everything had ended and there would be no consequence. I do not find the RP credible in this regard. He gave evidence that the Hungarian police made the other 2-3 persons arrested give an account against him and that they were prejudiced towards the RP because of his gypsy background. In this context, I do not find it at all plausible that the RP believed there would be no consequence because of his arrest. I find the RP was fully aware he would be subject to proceedings, that he was at risk of having his suspended sentence activated and left Hungary to place himself beyond the reach of the JA.”

The Respondent argued that the Judge was entitled to conclude that the Appellant was a fugitive regarding AW1 based on the documentary and oral evidence, particularly having observed the Appellant’s credibility. I agree and conclude that there is no basis on which to impugn the Judge’s finding in this respect.