![AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 4: breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
Ground 4: breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
As noted above, section 70 of the 2003 Act deals with the requirement that the SSHD certify a request from a Category 2 territory. Subsections (10) and (11), which were added by amendment by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, provide as follows:
“(10) Subsection (11) applies at all times after the Secretary of State issues a certificate under this section.
(11) The Secretary of State is not to consider whether the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
On the basis of this provision, Ms Cumberland submitted that Ground 4 is misconceived.
- 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