PA v Criminal Court Coimbra (Portugal) (Rev 1)

In an extradition appeal involving a child, the court must obtain sufficient, structured evidence of the child’s circumstances and views. Assumptions about the child’s likely distress are not an adequate substitute where proper evidence can be obtained. The child’s best interests are a primary consideration under Article 8, but they do not automatically outweigh the strong public interest in giving effect to extradition arrangements. The court should identify the factors for and against extradition and balance them transparently. Where extradition remains proportionate, the court may delay the effect of its order to allow consideration of serving the sentence in the United Kingdom under the applicable mutual-recognition framework.

The appellant appealed against an order of District Judge Snow dated 3 February 2016 granting Portugal’s request for her extradition under a European Arrest Warrant. She had been convicted in Portugal of armed robbery, swindling and forgery and sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment.

The appeal relied on delay, Article 8 rights arising from separation from her 11-year-old daughter, and the appellant’s medical and psychiatric condition. The High Court adjourned the appeal so that evidence could be obtained about the child’s circumstances and views, while concurrent care proceedings determined that the child should remain in long-term foster care. The central issue was whether extradition was unjust, oppressive or disproportionate in light of the child’s interests and the other circumstances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order below was set aside and replaced by an order dismissing the appeal, with the order’s effect delayed for six months. The appellant was to be extradited unless arrangements were made for her sentence to be served in the United Kingdom.
2. Under Extradition Act 2003, the High Court’s appellate powers are limited. If an appeal succeeds, it must discharge the requested person and quash the extradition order. It cannot remit the case for reconsideration. Where the evidence about an affected child is inadequate, the court may adjourn to obtain fresh evidence and then determine the appeal on the evidence available.
3. A court deciding extradition must pay particular attention to an affected child’s best interests and, where appropriate, obtain evidence about the child’s circumstances and views. The court should avoid assumptions. An evidentially structured approach is preferable, even if obtaining the evidence causes delay.
4. The child’s best interests are a primary consideration under Article 8 and Article 24 of the Charter, but they are not determinative. The court must identify the factors favouring and opposing extradition and conduct a clear balancing exercise. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements, discouraging the United Kingdom from becoming a refuge for fugitives, and maintaining mutual confidence between judicial authorities is very substantial.
5. The delay ground failed. Delay was not relevant to injustice because the appellant would not face a trial in Portugal. Most of the delay was attributable to her having fled Portugal and remained a fugitive. Any remaining delay was considered in the Article 8 balancing exercise. Her medical and psychiatric condition could be treated in Portugal and did not bar extradition.
6. The settled evidence showed that the child would remain in long-term foster care and that her relationship with the appellant involved limited contact. The child’s interests therefore did not outweigh the public interest in extradition. Serving the sentence in the United Kingdom under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA could nevertheless provide a lawful means of better protecting the prospect of future contact.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Snow’s extradition order was replaced. The appeal was dismissed, but the effect of the order was delayed for six months to allow exploration of sentence transfer.