AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)

I am entirely satisfied that the Qualifying Curfew point is the only viable point in the appeal. There is, in my judgment, no independent basis on which extradition in this case can be characterised as a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights (to respect for private and family life) or an abuse of process. The Judge’s analysis on the case as it stood before her is unimpeachable. The Appellant, with appropriate candour of his own, had informed this Court that in the period after the Judge’s decision he and his former partner ended their relationship. I accept that, in an updated case-specific analysis of Article 8 proportionality, the fact of a long period spent on EMC can be a factor in the overall balancing exercise: see Bakai v Slovakia [2024] EWHC 1768 (Admin) at §§30, 32-34. But I am also satisfied that – absent the Qualifying Curfew point which prevailed in A and Doga – the appeal cannot possibly succeed. There is no freestanding abuse of process. There are features which can weigh in the Article 8 balance against extradition, or which can reduce the weight of the Article 8 public interest considerations in favour of extradition. The Appellant has a private and family life here. He is not a fugitive. He has no other convictions. He has had a long period on EMC. There are impacts and implications of extradition for him and for his family members. But the features which cumulatively weigh against extradition are decisively outweighed by the public interest factors which weigh in favour of it. If the A/Doga point fails, no other argument or combination of points can succeed.