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

As far as Article 4 ECHR is concerned, this provides that:

“(1)

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

(2)

No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.”

For the reasons I have given, I accept Ms Cumberland’s submission that the question whether there would be a breach of Article 4 in the event of the extradition of the Claimant to the USA was, by reason of section 70(11) of the 2003 Act, not a matter for the SSHD. It was a matter for the courts in the context of the proceedings relating to the Request. Moreover, I also fail to see how a decision by the SSHD to leave this question to the courts was a breach of Article 4 nor why, given that the courts would consider it, it was irrational for the SSHD not to take this question into account. The proposition that because the Claimant had been a victim of forced criminality in the past his extradition to the USA would be contrary to Article 4, was also not clearly explained.

Article 32 ECAT, which sets out “General principles and measures for international cooperation” states that:

“The Parties shall co-operate with each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and through application of relevant applicable international and regional instruments, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation and internal laws, to the widest extent possible, for the purpose of:

– preventing and combating trafficking in human beings;

– protecting and providing assistance to victims;

– investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offences established in accordance with this Convention.”

In the course of her submissions I asked Ms Foot how this provision, which forms part of an unincorporated international treaty, could be enforceable at the suit of the Claimant or justiciable in the Administrative Court. I had in mind JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department for Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428 and also the non-specific terms and the overall nature of Article 32, which contemplates more specific laws and arrangements. She said that she would reflect on this question and get back to me, but neither she nor Mr Cooper returned to this point. In any event, why I should assume that such cooperation would not be possible if the Claimant was extradited to the USA was never made clear.

I therefore refuse permission in relation to Ground 5.