Claudio Lopes v Judicial Court of the District of Lisbon West (Portugal)

In extradition proceedings, a child’s best interests are a primary consideration where extradition affects family life, but they are not the only consideration. The court must balance the interference with Article 8 rights against the strong public interest in honouring international obligations and bringing fugitives to justice. There is no freestanding test of exceptionality: each case turns on its facts. Nevertheless, an Article 8 challenge will succeed only in cases involving an exceptionally severe impact on family life. On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate court must be satisfied that the district judge was wrong in the overall conclusion. The weight given to competing factors is primarily a matter for the district judge.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Portugal to serve the remaining period of a sentence for a serious street robbery committed in 2012. He argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The district judge considered the appellant’s established family life in the United Kingdom, the effect of separation on his wife and five children, the age of the offence, his lack of further offending and the psychological evidence. She concluded that the public interest in extradition, including the appellant’s fugitive status and the seriousness of the offence, outweighed the factors against extradition. The central issue was whether that overall conclusion was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had directed herself in accordance with the principles in Norris v United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9, H(H) v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) and Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz (Poland) [2025] UKSC 23.
2. There is no test of exceptionality in Article 8 extradition cases. The court must consider the particular facts, treating the best interests of affected children as a primary consideration and weighing them, together with other private and family-life interests, against the important public interest in extradition and compliance with international obligations.
3. The public interest remains especially strong where the requested person is a fugitive, has been convicted of a serious offence and has a substantial sentence remaining. Cases in which Article 8 defeats extradition are rare. An interference with family life must be exceptionally severe before it is likely to outweigh that public interest.
4. The district judge had properly engaged with the psychological report and the evidence of serious hardship to the appellant’s wife and children. She had considered the appellant’s ten identified factors, including the age of the offence, his subsequent law-abiding life, his family relationships, his time on remand and the practical difficulty of family visits to Portugal.
5. Under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, intervention required the court to be persuaded that the district judge was wrong in her overall conclusion. The evaluative balance was primarily for her. The High Court was not persuaded that the conclusion that extradition would be proportionate was wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the district judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The court held that the district judge was not wrong to conclude that extradition was compatible with Article 8 and proportionate.
• District Judge Pilling: On 28 January 2025, ordered extradition to Portugal under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Permission to appeal: McGowan J granted permission on the papers on 14 April 2025.