![AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3: failure to take into account relevant considerations
Ground 3: failure to take into account relevant considerations
The principle
Whether a consideration is relevant to a decision is a matter of law: R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC [2011] 1 AC 437 at [70]; R (Wright) v Forest of Dean DC [2019] 1 WLR 6562 at [42]. A consideration which is not expressly required by the relevant legislation to be considered will only be a relevant consideration if it is “so obviously material” to the decision to be taken that a failure to consider it would be contrary to the intention of the legislation conferring the decision making function: Re Findlay [1985] AC 318, 333-334; R (Hurst) v London North District Coroner [2007] 2 AC 189 at [57]-[58].
- 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