Damario Boyd v District of Rhode Island, Government of the United States of America

Permission to appeal in an extradition case should be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success. A forum-bar challenge requires an evaluative assessment of the statutory interests-of-justice matters. The appellate court will not interfere where that assessment is legally sound, factually supported and properly balanced.

Severe interference with family life may nevertheless be proportionate where the public interest in extradition decisively outweighs the consequences for the affected family members. A prosecution in the United Kingdom may be a relevant Article 8 alternative in an extreme case, but it does not necessarily satisfy the public interest in extradition. Putative fresh evidence should not be admitted where it could not affect the outcome.

The applicant, a United States citizen, resisted extradition to face an 11-count indictment alleging identity theft, fraud and extortion. Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition after a two-day hearing, and the Home Secretary ordered extradition on 28 April 2025.

The applicant sought permission to appeal on the forum-bar and Article 8 ECHR grounds. He also sought permission to rely on putative fresh evidence concerning the effect of extradition on his partner and four children. The central issues were whether the magistrates’ evaluative assessments were arguably wrong and whether the proposed evidence could realistically change the result.

1. Permission to appeal. The court applied the question whether either proposed ground had a realistic prospect of success. Having considered the arguments afresh, it reached the same conclusion as Collins Rice J on the papers: neither ground was realistically arguable.
2. Forum bar. The magistrates’ approach under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003 was legally sound. The court accepted the assessment of the place of loss and harm, the interests of the victims, comparative prosecutorial delay, and the desirability of proceedings taking place in one forum as factors favouring the United States. The availability of evidence in the United Kingdom and the applicant’s substantial United Kingdom connections were properly considered in the opposite direction. The resulting evaluative conclusion was not arguably wrong.
3. Article 8 ECHR. The magistrates recognised the severe effects extradition would have on the applicant, his partner and the four children. Even assuming that prosecution in the United Kingdom could be a relevant Article 8 alternative in an extreme case, as discussed in HH [2012] UKSC 25 at §83, the public interest in extradition was not met without extradition in this case. The strong public interest decisively outweighed the opposing family-life considerations. Extradition was proportionate.
4. Fresh evidence and order. The proposed fresh evidence was incapable of being decisive. Permission to adduce it was refused, as was permission to appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal against the extradition decision refused; permission to adduce putative fresh evidence refused.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Sternberg ordered extradition after a hearing in March 2025.
• Home Secretary: extradition order made on 28 April 2025.