![AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons which I have given I will therefore make an Order quashing the Decision.
The draft of my judgment which was sent out to the parties on 8 September 2025 said that I proposed to direct that the GLD provide a full explanation of the errors which were made in relation to Annex B to the Submission, and whether the Minister had sight of the Request and the Warrant (see [66]-[74], above). Before the promulgation of this judgment, on 10 September 2025, the GLD provided a detailed explanation and further apologies were made, including for any perceived lack of appreciation of the seriousness of these errors. I am told that there was a series of errors and misunderstandings in relation to Annex B for which the GLD takes responsibility. I am told that the errors in relation to the Request and the Warrant arose from a factual misunderstanding on the part of Counsel for which Ms Cumberland takes responsibility and apologises profusely. Subject to any submissions from the other parties, and having expressed my views on the matter earlier in this judgment, I propose to let it rest there.
- Heading
- Mr Justice Linden
- The issues for determination
- Summary of my decision
- Outline of the key features of the statutory framework for present purposes
- The facts
- The request for the extradition of the Claimant by the USA
- The decision of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in relation to the USA’s request for the extradition of the Claimant
- The referral of the Claimant under the National Referral Mechanism
- The Claimant’s appeal against the order for his extradition pursuant to the Request
- The Portuguese arrest warrant
- The order for the extradition of the Claimant pursuant to the Warrant and the Claimant’s second claim for judicial review
- The evidence about the SSHD’s decision on 14 March 2024
- Annex A to the Submission
- The discovery of errors as to Annex B to the Submission and other information which was before the SSHD at the time of the Decision
- The contents of Annex B, so far as is material
- The SSHD’s Order
- Attempts on behalf of the Claimant to make representations
- Ground 1: breach of the duty to act fairly?
- The Claimant’s argument
- The submissions on behalf of Portugal
- The argument on behalf of the SSHD
- The USA’s submissions
- Discussion
- Conclusion on Ground 1
- Ground 2: mistake of fact?
- The arguments of the parties
- Discussion of Ground 2
- Ground 3: failure to take into account relevant considerations
- The arguments of the parties
- Discussion
- Ground 4: breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
- The Claimant’s argument
- Discussion and conclusion
- Ground 5: breach of Article 4 ECHR and the ECAT
- Discussion
- Section 31 (2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
- The Additional Point
- Discussion
- Conclusions