Alberto Queba Braganca Cassama v Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa Norte, Portugal
[2024] EWHC 2811 (Admin)
Miguel Antonio Da Cruz & Anor v Portugal
27 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 417 (Admin)
High Court
A man wanted in Portugal for theft and money laundering appealed an extradition order. The appeal was slightly late, but the judge decided it was still valid. The judge also decided to ask Portugal if they would only make the man serve a shorter sentence for just the theft and not the longer sentence including money laundering, before dealing with the other issues in the case.
Key Facts
- •Miguel Antonio Da Cruz Oliveira Nobre (Appellant) is wanted for extradition to Portugal.
- •He was convicted of theft and money laundering.
- •A District Judge ordered his extradition for theft but not money laundering.
- •The Appellant appeals, raising an Article 8 ECHR issue and a specialty issue under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
- •A question arose regarding whether Portugal could disaggregate the sentences, requiring only the 3-year sentence for theft to be served.
- •The appeal was filed one day late.
- •The court needed to determine if the late filing should be excused and whether to send questions to the Portuguese judicial authorities.
Legal Principles
The 'permitted period' for appealing an extradition order (7 days under Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003) means 7 days until midnight on the 7th day, not subject to rules of court's time limits.
Mucelli v Albania [2009] UKHL 2, Pomiechowski v Poland [2012] UKSC 20
If an appeal is filed after the permitted period, the High Court must not refuse it if everything reasonably possible was done to file it as soon as possible (Section 26(5) Extradition Act 2003).
Section 26(5) Extradition Act 2003, O’Connor [2022] UKSC 4
Rules of court govern the manner of service, not the time of service, in extradition appeals.
Mucelli v Albania [2009] UKHL 2
Even if the 7th day is a non-business day (Carry-Over), the permitted period extends to midnight on the next business day.
Mucelli v Albania [2009] UKHL 2, Poland v Czubala [2016] EWHC 1653 (Admin)
The principle of specialty under Article 625(2) of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement protects an individual from being prosecuted for offences other than those for which they were extradited.
Article 625(2) Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Outcomes
The appeal was deemed timely, even though filed after the 7-day period.
The court found that the appeal was served before midnight on the next business day following the 7th calendar day, which fell on a Sunday. The court also determined that even if it was out of time, section 26(5) would have applied.
Questions will be sent to the Portuguese judicial authorities regarding the disaggregation of sentences.
To determine whether the appellant would serve a 3-year or 5-year sentence and ensure compliance with specialty principles.
Consideration of the Article 8 ECHR issue was deferred.
By agreement of both parties, to await the response from the Portuguese authorities.
Similar Cases
Samuel Fortes Paiva v Tribunal Da Comarca De Setubal Portugal
[2024] EWHC 980 (Admin)
Danil Nicolae Mirita v Dambovita County Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 799 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Arkadiusz Rozwens v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland
[2024] EWHC 624 (Admin)