High Court dismisses Damario Boyd's extradition appeal despite family's mental health evidence

The High Court has refused permission to appeal against the extradition of Damario Boyd, a 30-year-old US citizen wanted to face an 11-count indictment in the District of Rhode Island, rejecting arguments based on both the forum bar and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Justice Fordham handed down the judgement at a hearing on 1 July 2026, upholding the decision of District Judge Sternberg made at Westminster Magistrates' Court in March 2025. Extradition had subsequently been ordered by the Home Secretary on 28 April 2025.

Boyd is accused of defrauding a US citizen, Joseph Maloney, of approximately US$1.2 million between 2017 and 2021, allegedly by assuming the online persona of a woman named Jaynay Harley. Prosecutors allege the scheme began with aggravated identity theft and culminated in extortionate threats made in May 2021, after Maloney refused to make further transfers. Some of the misappropriated funds are said to have come from Maloney's employer, a private hospital, with sums paid either by Maloney directly or diverted straight from the hospital to Boyd.

Boyd relocated to the United Kingdom in October 2020 and has remained here since, living with his partner and their children in Nottingham. The couple have four children, born between 2016 and 2024. He was arrested on the extradition request in August 2024 and has been held on remand for two years.

At first instance, District Judge Sternberg distinguished between different counts when assessing the forum bar under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003, finding that later counts relating to 2021 conduct had a substantial UK connection, while earlier counts and the identity theft charge did not. Counsel for Boyd, Malcolm Hawkes, argued this distinction was flawed, relying on the Supreme Court's treatment of extradition offences and double criminality in El Khouri v USA [2025] UKSC 3. Fordham J found this argument had no practical traction, noting the district judge had gone on to assess the statutory factors on the alternative assumption that the distinction was wrong.

The district judge had found that the location of resultant harm, the interests of the victims, and the desirability of a unified prosecution all weighed heavily in favour of the US as the appropriate forum, while accepting that Boyd's UK connections and the availability of evidence for a UK trial weighed against extradition. On balance, the factors favouring US prosecution were found to substantially outweigh those favouring the UK.

On the Article 8 challenge, Hawkes pointed to evidence of deterioration in the mental health of Boyd's partner, including a documented history of self-harm and a risk of suicide, together with the intervention of mental health services in relation to the couple's eldest child. He submitted that trial in the UK represented an alternative capable of meeting the public interest in prosecution without the severe consequences of extradition, referencing HH [2012] UKSC 25.

Fordham J acknowledged the severity of the impact on the family but found no arguable error in the district judge's balancing exercise, concluding that the strong public interest considerations favouring extradition decisively outweighed the family circumstances relied upon, even accounting for the proposed fresh evidence.

Permission to appeal was refused, as was permission to adduce the fresh evidence, on the basis that it was incapable of altering the outcome.