On 21 November 2025 District Judge Sternberg sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court discharged Tihomir Mak’s client Mr TR, a father of two sought by Hungary to serve the remaining 14 months of two sentences he was extradited for from the UK in 2020. Mr TR partially served his sentences in Hungary when he was released from prison and allowed to return to his family in the UK. Tihomir successfully argued that extradition was oppressive due to the passage of time, in which Mr TR had an aortic valve replacement and experienced a complete breakdown of his relationship, making him a sole carer for his two children. The judicial authority did not appeal the judgment.
Mr TR first faced extradition for three old convictions totalling 2 years and 11 months in 2020. He consented to return to Hungary to resolve the matter. He spent over six months in custody in the UK awaiting extradition. Mr TR then served another 7 months in Hungary but was released from prison after his application to reopen his conviction in absentia was granted. He returned to his family in the UK, participated in the re-trial remotely and was convicted, but his sentence was reduced to time served and he was told there was no sentence left to serve. Unknown to Mr TR, the Hungarian prosecutor appealed this decision, which was overturned in an in camera hearing in the absence of the parties. Mr TR’s longer sentence was reinstated, and the Hungarian authority issued another warrant for TR’s arrest in March 2024.
Mr TR’s extradition proceedings lasted over 1.5 years. There were several adjournments as the already complex case increased in complexity as time passed. Only nine months prior to the second warrant, Mr TR had his aortic valve replaced which made him reliant on seven different medications and regular tests.
During the extradition proceedings, his mental health declined seriously, and he developed a suicidal ideation. By the end of 2024, his partner of many years abandoned the family abruptly and moved out of the UK, leaving him to financially support and care for two sons.
Having considered and rejected five other challenges to extradition, the Judge found that although the relevant period was only 2 years, the serious decline in Mr TR’s physical and mental health, the impact of the earlier extradition proceedings, the impact of the abrupt collapse of his relationship on his sons (including the upheaval suffered by the 10 year old), the genuine belief and sense of security Mr TR had following his retrial, the time he already served in prison, the nature of the offences and the impact of extradition on the family unit would render extradition oppressive. The judge found that the bar of the passage of time was made out.
Mr TR was represented by Tihomir Mak of 9BR Chambers’ extradition and international team. Tihomir was instructed by Ms Seema Dosaj of Berris Law, who was ably assisted by Mr Jack Coombs.
