AC-2023-LON-003019 - [2025] EWHC 1851 (Admin)

The question raised by Article 8 ECHR in the extradition context is whether the interference with the private and family life of the person whose extradition is sought is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition, ensuring that those accused of crimes should be brought to trial and in the UK honouring its international obligations. That public interest will always carry great weight, but the weight will vary according to the nature and seriousness of the crime involved. Each case turns on its own facts as found by the Judge and the balancing of the considerations referred to above. Whilst there is no test of exceptionality “it is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the Article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe”. The test is always whether the gravity of interference with family life is justified by the gravity of the public interest pursued Norris v Government of the USA (No.2) [2010] UKSC 9, [2010] 2 AC 487 and HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, [2-12] 3 WLR 90 at [¶8].

The single question for the appellate court is whether or not the District Judge made the wrong decision. The test laid down in Love v USA 2018 EWHC 172 Admin [25- 26] is whether crucial factors should have been weighed so significantly differently that the decision should be considered wrong. Findings of fact, especially if evidence has been heard, must ordinarily be respected. The focus must be on the outcome, that is on the decision itself. Although the District Judge’s reasons must be considered with care, errors and omissions do not of themselves necessarily show that the decision on proportionality itself was wrong (Celinski v Poland [ 2016] 1 W.L.R. 551).