[2025] EWHC 2783 (Admin)

The legal provisions in relation to specialty are set out in section 95 of the Act. Pursuant to section 95(1):

“the Secretary of State must not order a person's extradition to a category 2 territory if there are no speciality arrangements with the category 2 territory”.

Under section 95(3) – (4) of the Act, there are speciality arrangements with a category 2 territory:

“if (and only if) under the law of that territory or arrangements made between it and the United Kingdom a person who is extradited to the territory from the United Kingdom may be dealt with in the territory for an offence committed before his extradition only if-

(a)

the offence is one falling within subsection (4), or

(b)

he is first given an opportunity to leave the territory.

Pursuant to section 95 of the Act, the starting point is for the Secretary of State to consider whether there are, in fact, specialty arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Requesting State. Where specialty arrangements are in place, the Secretary of State can presume the authorities of the Requesting State will act in good faith and comply with their international obligations unless there is “compelling evidence to the contrary”: Ruiz v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National Court, Madrid [2008] 1 WLR 2798 at [67]; and Patel v Government of India [2013] EWHC 819 (Admin) at [71].

In this case Article 11 of the Treaty means that there are in fact the necessary specialty arrangements in place with Kuwait. Mr Smith’s submission is that the failure to issue a second extradition request until the misunderstanding was pointed out constitutes compelling evidence that the State of Kuwait will ignore its specialty treaty obligations. In our view the conduct in question falls well short of any such compelling evidence. On the contrary, once the misunderstanding was pointed out a second request was made. The Government of Kuwait is all the more likely to ensure compliance with its specialty obligations in respect of Mr Badie in the light of the previous error now that the issue has been put under the spotlight, and knowing that failure to do so would imperil future extradition applications as well as the bilateral relationship more generally.

Moreover following Mr Badie’s recent discharge under the second extradition request, there has been a further assurance given by the Government of Kuwait dated 12 October 2025 confirming that that it would only seek to detain punish or try Mr Badie for the offences contained in the second extradition request either if it is resubmitted and he is extradited in respect of it, or if permission is sought and obtained from the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty. There is no cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that the assurance has been provided in good faith and will be complied with.

Accordingly ground 7 fails.