Ture v District Court of Lisbon, Portugal

Where extradition engages the Article 8 rights of a dependent child, the child’s welfare must be treated as a primary consideration. The court must have sufficient reliable information about the arrangements that would be made for the child if extradition occurred. Where material evidence has changed and the available information is inadequate, the proper course is to adjourn and obtain an objective assessment rather than determine the appeal on an incomplete evidential basis. The appellate court’s limited statutory powers do not prevent such an adjournment. A further expert report should not be directed without a demonstrated need, particularly where it would risk delaying the proceedings.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Ikram’s order of 24 March 2016 directing his extradition to Portugal to serve a 15-month sentence. His sole ground was that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights and those of his 12-year-old daughter, for whom he was the sole carer.

Before the District Judge, the appellant had relied on the possibility that the child could live with her grandmother in Portugal. On appeal, he asserted that the grandmother was unable to care for the child and intended to return to Guinea-Bissau. The court therefore had to decide whether it could fairly determine the Article 8 issue without further inquiry into the child’s likely care arrangements.

1. The appeal was adjourned. The court could either allow the appeal and discharge the extradition order or dismiss the appeal. It had no statutory power to set aside the order and remit the matter for rehearing. That limitation did not require the court to decide the appeal on an inadequate evidential foundation.
2. The child’s welfare had to be treated as a primary consideration in assessing the Article 8 rights of the child and her father. The earlier local-authority assessment had proceeded on information which the appellant now said was inaccurate. There was insufficient reliable information about what would happen to the child if the appellant were extradited, including the possibility that she might enter local-authority care.
3. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to determine the appeal without further inquiry. The court therefore directed Hackney Children’s Services to prepare a further assessment pursuant to Children Act, section 7, addressing the arrangements that could be made for the child if the appeal were dismissed.
4. The court noted the need to proceed briskly because the proceedings had already been delayed and delay itself was relevant to one issue. It also identified the possibility that the mother of the child’s younger half-sibling might be a potential carer, although the appropriate inquiries were left to Children’s Services.
5. Leave was refused for a child psychologist’s report. The court was far from persuaded that it was necessary, and such a report risked extending the timetable.

• District Judge: On 24 March 2016, District Judge Ikram ordered the appellant’s extradition to Portugal to serve a 15-month sentence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was adjourned pending a further assessment of the child’s care arrangements. The court did not finally allow or dismiss the appeal.