AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)

Annex A is headed “Competing Requests”. It provided further guidance on sections 126 and 179 of the 2003 Act, and a copy of section 179. Under the heading “Statutory considerations” the following was stated:

“6.

Consideration is mandatory of the four matters set out in sections 126(3) and 179(3) and it is those matters which take primacy in deciding which of two requests takes precedence.

(i)

relative seriousness of the offences: this will usually determine which claims takes (sic) precedence. (emphasis added)

(ii)

location of offences: the significance may be less apparent and the factors to be weighed may include the nationality of the person concerned; the whereabouts of any witnesses; and the location of any victim(s).

(iii)

respective dates of receiving the requests: which claim was made first and how far it has progressed are factors which can be considered; but it may also be right to make some allowance for the more onerous requirements which category two territories have to meet.

(iv)

accused or convicted: the significance may involve an assessment of such matters as whether the person here has been convicted abroad in his absence; if so, whether he has any entitlement to retrial; and how a decision in favour of one State might prejudice the other. In some cases, it may be sensible or necessary to make enquiries of both States.”

Under the heading “Matters which may be taken into account” the following was stated:

“7.

Where the decision as to precedence is not settled by the relative seriousness of the offences and the other factors set out above, other matters which may bear some relevance on determining which claim should take precedence may be:

(i)

In accusation cases, whether there is any risk that an offence might become statute barred if another claim for extradition is given precedence.

(ii)

In accusation cases, whether there exists a real risk that according to precedence to one claim would effectively end the prospect of any trial or substantially prejudice any trial in the other territory.

(iii)

In accusation cases, the extent to which conduct alleged in a request or Part 1 Warrant is subsumed in a competing request or Part 1 Warrant. (emphasis added)

(iv)

Whether there is any information to suggest that an allegation is of particular significance or sensitivity in either territory.

(v)

Whether it is manifestly apparent that a claim is defective and incapable of giving rise to extradition.

(vi)

Any indication by the respective territories that they are capable of resolving the question of precedence by co-operation.

8.

Where the decision is not clear cut, it may be necessary or worthwhile asking specific questions of (as distinct from inviting general representations from) the States concerned. Those States might also be asked to explore the scope for agreeing between themselves the question of precedence.” (emphasis added)

There was then a section on which matters may not be taken into account which stated that the decision should not rest on political considerations:

“10.

Nor should Ministers take into account matters (such as human rights) which are properly for the extradition courts to decide. (emphasis added)

11.

It is not for Ministers to establish the sufficiency of particulars or evidence adduced in support of competing claims – those also being matters for the court. But Ministers might be justified in giving precedence to one claim over another if one was so defective as to be hopeless.”