Departmento De Investigacao E Accao Penal De Lisboa Portugal, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court

In post-extradition consent proceedings, the passage of time may make further extradition oppressive even where a fair trial would remain possible. The inquiry is fact-sensitive and includes the cumulative effect of delay, fragmentation and changing circumstances. A requesting authority’s procedural explanation for delay is relevant but does not determine the issue. Oppression is not established by ordinary hardship alone. The court must also consider the seriousness of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the person concerned. On judicial review, a carefully reasoned decision balancing those matters will not be disturbed merely because another view of their weight is possible.

The claimant sought permission to challenge by judicial review a decision of District Judge Purdy refusing consent under sections 54 and 55 of the Extradition Act 2003 for Mr Azevedo to be dealt with in Portugal for further alleged dishonesty offences. Mr Azevedo had previously been extradited to Portugal after the Divisional Court dismissed his appeal in [2012] EWHC 3433 (Admin).

The district judge rejected abuse-of-process and fair-trial objections but concluded under section 14 that, given the age of the allegations and the protracted prosecution process, further extradition would be oppressive. The central issue was whether that conclusion disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. Permission refused. The claimant had not shown an arguable error of law in the district judge’s decision.
2. Under sections 54 and 55 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question was whether extradition would be barred by section 14 because it would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time. The concepts are distinct. In a Council of Europe case, the unjust limb is generally concerned with protection against an unjust or unfair trial, whereas oppression is not established by ordinary hardship alone.
3. The district judge was entitled to find oppression from the cumulative circumstances. Several alleged offences were 15 or 16 years old, the prosecution had been protracted and fragmented, and substantial time had passed after the Portuguese authorities knew the relevant facts. The authorities’ explanation that procedural rules prevented earlier charges and European arrest warrants did not determine the section 14 issue.
4. Change of circumstances may occur incrementally as a consequence of dilatory pursuit of prosecutions. The seriousness of the alleged offences and the resources devoted to the prosecution were relevant, but the reviewing court would not interfere with the district judge’s evaluative weighing of those matters absent an error of law.
5. The claim also faced substantial delay under CPR 54.5, although the merits conclusion was independently sufficient. The interested party’s costs were summarily assessed at £5,000 plus VAT, payable by the CPS Extradition Unit within 21 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court decision.
• Divisional Court: An earlier appeal in the extradition proceedings was dismissed, resulting in extradition to Portugal: [2012] EWHC 3433 (Admin).