Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-228)
Mr Peter Jozsef Csonka and Mr Thomas Ljungquist
25 APRIL 2007
Q220 Lord Mance: All the evidence
would have to be taken by video, although all the evidence would
relate to matters in the executing state?
Mr Csonka: Obviously when the person is handed
back to the issuing state—he was arrested for the breach
and he is transferred back—he may have a review at this
level in the issuing state as well. Under 17(4) it is definitely
a review which is taking place in the issuing state, but it can
take place through a video-conference. So the person physically
may stay in the executing state.
Q221 Chairman: The whole of 17 predicates
that there has been a breach and really the question is, how do
you decide whether there has been a breach, because it is very
often, as with breach of parole conditions and that sort of thing,
a very contentious question. "Did this person hang around
children's playgrounds?" or whatever it may be, and there
may be a question of identity. There may be all sorts of issues.
Where is that issue resolved and how?
Mr Csonka: That issue has to be resolved in
this hearing, which may or may not take place through a video-conference.
Q222 Chairman: So 17(1) could start,
"In the event of an alleged breach"?
Mr Csonka: Yes.
Chairman: I see.
Q223 Lord Mance: If you have a sex
offender and he breaches the conditions, you are saying that in
Hungary the matter is to be resolved, even though the breach has
occurred in this country, and even though all the evidence relates
to his conduct in this country in breach of the conditions?
Mr Csonka: The issue at stake is, who controls
the process? Who is in control of the supervision measure, the
issuing states or the executing states? This Framework Decision
is predicated upon the concept that it is the issuing state which
is in control of the process.
Q224 Lord Mance: If I may interrupt,
you started this exercise by saying that the issuing state was
more appropriate because it had the file, it had the evidence.
Mr Csonka: Exactly.
Q225 Lord Mance: Here in relation
to breach the exact opposite applies, the more appropriate state
is the executing state because it has the evidence, it has the
file and it knows the facts and it has the person?
Mr Csonka: Yes. Still, this can be explained
to the issuing state. It has to be explained to the issuing state.
The issuing state is ultimately the one which will take the decision
whether or not to revoke the supervision measure.
Q226 Chairman: And to decide whether
or not there has been a breach?
Mr Csonka: Exactly.
Q227 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: So
the court in the issuing state, in Hungary, has to decide whether
the defendant did or did not come near the playground, whether
he was rightly identified, to take my Lord's question? All of
that has got to be decided in Hungary after consulting authorities
in this country and it will be tested in Hungary by the Hungarian
court in Hungarian, even though the conditions were imposed by
the English court and the breach occurred in England and all the
evidence is in English?
Mr Csonka: Yes, but you are talking about a
breach of a supervision measure. You use terms such as evidence,
the file. I do not consider the breach of a supervision measure
as a criminal offence per se. It is a breach of a supervision
measure imposed by the issuing state court. The person has not
appeared on Monday at the police station.
Q228 Lord Mance: It has to be proved.
It is a matter of liberty.
Mr Csonka: Absolutely, but ultimately it is
one state which should decide and that should be the state which
issued the supervision measure. I do not see how this responsibility
can be transferred because of a particular breach to another state.
It is the issuing state which prosecutes, which knows the person,
at least the particular offence which was committed by the offender
and the surrounding conditions of that offence and therefore it
imposed a certain number of measures. If one of those measures,
or several of them have been breached it is still the issuing
state that should decide whether this measure should be maintained
or not. I do not see how the responsibility could be transferred
from that issuing state to the executing state. Even if the facts
of the matter happened in the executing State, even if the information
is immediately available to the executing State, still the information
can be communicated to the issuing State. There are means for
that. So I think to be consistent with the concept it has to be
the issuing state which takes the decision.
Chairman: I think we are going to bring it to
a close at that juncture. I think we have taken up at least as
much of your time as we could possibly ask for and you have got
to get, as we know, to a train, but you take with you the thanks
of this Committee, Mr Csonka and Mr Ljungquist. You have been,
if I may say so, enormously frank and helpful in answering our
very many probing questions and I hope you have not thought that
we have been in the least hostile. We are just anxious to see
if we can possibly assist in the process of this very important
new measure. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
