“The Appeal raises an entirely new point which was not considered at the hearing before the District Judge or at the paper stage. It relates to the means of restraint used in prisons in Hungary which involve: 1. the practice of placing violent, agitated or recalcitrant prisoners in padded cells in their underwear with restraints on their hands and ankles (with the hands restrained behind the back) for periods of up to 8 hours without access to toilets and; 2. the practice of shackling prisoners to beds or other fixed objects. These practices are evidenced in the most recent CPT report which was not available prior to December of 2025. It is far from clear from the government response to the CPT report that these practices have ceased or relate to only one prison. It is reasonably arguable that they may involve a breach of Article 3 rights and that the fresh material would have led to the case being decided differently.” used in prisons in Hungary which involve: cells in their underwear with restraints on their hands and ankles (with the hands restrained behind the back) for periods of up to 8 hours without access to These practices are evidenced in the most recent CPT report which was not available prior to December of 2025. It is far from clear from the government response to the CPT report that these practices have ceased or relate to only one prison. It is reasonably arguable that they may involve a breach of Article 3 rights and that the fresh material would have led to the case being decided differently.”
“45. The findings at Tiszalok Prison are a matter of grave concern to the CPT. The information gathered through interviews with prisoners and the examination of various registers, most notably individual reports on the use of coercive measures, clearly showed that there used to be a practice of placing violent, agitated or recalcitrant prisoners in padded cells for up to eight hours. Throughout that time, their hands were restrained behind their back with metal handcuffs attached to a belt, and they were also ankle-cuffed. They were lying in a prone position in only their underwear, with their knees bent and the hand and ankle-cuffs connected by a chain behind their back. Some of the prisoners concerned also described that they could not stand up or even move, they had had cramps in their limbs, which had become numb, and they had wet themselves. In some cases, when prison officers came to check on the prisoner placed in the padded cell, they allegedly kicked him. It was alleged that the prisoners concerned were not systematically visited by healthcare staff throughout their placement in the padded cells. Further, several prisoners interviewed during the visit alleged that the hand and ankle-cuffs had been excessively tight and had left marks and scars on their wrists and ankles. In some cases, these marks and scars were still visible when they were interviewed by the delegation several months after the incident. These consistent and credible allegations were received in several interviews carried out separately with individual prisoners.”
“The CPT recommends that these precepts are effectively implemented in practice. The relevant regulations should be amended accordingly and measures should be taken to ensure that the staff are duly informed of the new procedures and requirements. Further, prison officers should be trained in verbal de-escalation techniques, and proportionate manual control and restraint techniques”
“The CPT recommends that the Hungarian authorities take urgent steps to ensure that these precepts are implemented in practice. The relevant regulations should be amended accordingly and measures should be taken to ensure that the staff are duly informed of the new procedures and requirements.”
“A prisoner exhibiting behaviour that poses a danger to themselves or others shall be placed in a room designed for this purpose – for this purpose, means of restraint may be used against them – and immediate measures shall be taken to have them examined by a doctor or, in the absence of a prison doctor, by a specialist nurse. In the latter case, measures shall be taken to ensure that the prisoner is examined by the prison doctor within two hours, with the involvement of a psychologist if necessary. Isolation may last for a maximum of eight hours and its necessity must be reviewed every two hours. After eight hours, if the prisoner’s condition had not improved, arrangements must be made for a psychiatric examination.”
“Following the CPT visit, the security department conducted an investigation into the subject of restraint as a preventive measure to restrict movement. In terms of justification, the investigation found that the institutions applying the security measure had restrained the detainees in accordance with their legal authority, without exceeding its provisions. In most cases, the staff used this method because of self-harming behaviour or threats of self-harm, and to a lesser extent because of violent behaviour or unpredictable and disturbed behaviour.”
“In most of the cases examined, the security measure was applied to prevent self-harm, but in cases where the detainee exhibits other behaviour that violates or threatens the order of the prison, restraint may be used to stop or eliminate such behaviour, and prison staff have the option of using this measure to ensure its effective completion. Restraint for the purpose of preventing self-harm may only be carried out in a single-person isolation cell equipped with electronic surveillance devices, on a device designed for this purpose, in a supine position, with the limbs restrained and a device to protect the head in place. The duration of this measure shall not exceed two hours continuously. If the risk of self-harm persists after two hours, the restraint shall be discontinued and the detainee shall be placed in a room designed for the accommodation of detainees exhibiting self-harming or dangerous behaviour.”
“The Security Regulations regulate restraint in points 169–175, according to which it is permissible, among other things, if it is necessary to prevent further self-harm, attack, or escape by the detainee, breaking resistance, or ensuring the effective completion of the measure cannot be ensured in any other way, and the prisoner's condition does not justify placement in a room intended for prisoners exhibiting behaviour that is dangerous to themselves or others. The opinion of a doctor or other medical personnel is also decisive in assessing the justification.”
“The legal provision contained in the previous paragraph includes all the guarantee elements which, if consistently and accurately complied with, enable the objective of the measure to be achieved in a manner that excludes inhuman or degrading treatment. The room equipped with electronic surveillance equipment is justified for the purpose of continuous surveillance, single-person isolation ensures that the person subject to the measure is not exposed to other detainees, the supine position excludes the possibility of suffocation, and the device protecting the head prevents further self-harming behaviour, which is the only possible behaviour during the measure. By placing prisoners who exhibit self-harming or dangerous behaviour after two hours in a cell, the regulation emphasizes graduality. Restraint may be ordered by the head of the relevant department designated by the head of the prison service, or by the security officer on duty outside office hours. Restraint to objects was used in 72 cases nationwide during the period under review.”
“Stage 1 of the procedure involves determining whether there is such a risk by assessing objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence … A finding of such a risk cannot lead, in itself, to a refusal to execute the EAW. Where such a risk is identified, the court is required to proceed to Stage 2. Stage 2 requires the executing judicial authority to make a specific assessment of whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned will be exposed to that risk. To that end it must request the issuing authority to provide as a matter of urgency all necessary supplementary information on the conditions in which it is envisaged that the individual concerned will be detained. Stage 3 deals with the position after the information is provided. If in light of that, and of any other available information, the executing authority finds that, for the individual concerned, there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, execution of the warrant must be postponed but cannot be abandoned.”
“50.20(6) Where the appeal is against an order by the magistrates' court— (a) … (b) if the grounds of appeal are that there is an issue which was not raised at the extradition hearing, or that evidence is available which was not available at the extradition hearing, the appeal notice must— (i) identify that issue or evidence, (ii) explain why it was not then raised or available, (iii) explain why that issue or evidence would have resulted in the magistrates' court deciding a question differently at the extradition hearing, and (iv) explain why, if the court had decided that question differently, the court would have been required not to make the order it made.”
“Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope ofart 3 of the Convention . The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and health of the victim.”
“124. The Court notes that confinement of a person to a restraint bed is a measure of restraint that does not necessarily give rise to an issue underart 3 of the Convention . However, the Court is mindful of the high risk of ill-treatment of prisoners subjected to a means of restraint of such intensity. The application of such measure calls for a thorough scrutiny of its lawfulness as well as of the grounds for and the manner of its use.”
“Most importantly, even if the applicant's initial confinement in the restraint bed was justified, the Court is not persuaded that the situation remained as serious for nearly nine hours. Confinement to a restraint bed, without medical reasons – which have not been shown to have existed in the present case – should rarely need to be applied for more than a few hours”