Bruno Manuel da Cunha Mós v Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa, Portugal

On an extradition appeal under Article 8, the appellate court reviews whether the proportionality decision was wrong. If a material flaw is identified, it must conduct the balancing exercise afresh, while showing appropriate deference to factual findings based on live evidence.

Culpable delay by the requesting state diminishes the public interest in extradition, but does not automatically make extradition disproportionate. The effect of delay must be assessed with all the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offence, the sentence remaining to be served, extradition obligations, family impact and medical evidence.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order extraditing him to Portugal to serve a four-year sentence. Permission was granted only on the Article 8 issue.

The district judge had found that the appellant was not shown to be a fugitive, but concluded that the public interest in extradition outweighed the impact on his private and family life. The appeal concerned principally whether the district judge had wrongly assessed delay and its effect on proportionality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order was upheld. The appellant’s extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.
2. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate question was whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. In an Article 8 appeal, the focus is on the outcome. Where a material flaw is identified, the appellate court must conduct the proportionality exercise afresh, while respecting factual findings based on live evidence.
3. The district judge made material chronological errors. The relevant sentence became final in 2018, not 2021, and the requesting authority’s unexplained delay of about four years and five months was culpable. That delay diminished the public interest in extradition.
4. Culpable delay was not decisive. Its effect was fact-specific. The public interest remained weighty because of extradition obligations, mutual trust in the requesting court, the four-year sentence still to be served, the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s offending history.
5. The factors against extradition, including the appellant’s settled life, his mother’s circumstances, the fourteen-year period since the offence, his mild mental-health conditions and the culpable delay, did not outweigh the public interest in extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: extradition ordered on 23 February 2024; reasons handed down on 22 March 2024.