![AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
MR JUSTICE LINDEN
Between :
THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF DIOGO SANTOS COELHO) | Claimant |
- and – | |
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT | Defendant |
- and – | |
(1) GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2) REGIONAL DEPARTMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS, PORTO | |
Interested Parties |
Ben Cooper KC, Helen Foot and Amelia Nice (instructed by Hodge Jones and Allen Solicitors) for the Claimant
Melanie Cumberland KC and Saoirse Townshend (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Richard Evans andTom Williams (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the First Interested Party
Stefan Hyman (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Second Interested Party
Hearing date: 2 July 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 11 September 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MR JUSTICE LINDEN
The issues for determination 5
Outline of the key features of the statutory framework for present purposes 7
The request for the extradition of the Claimant by the USA 9
The referral of the Claimant under the National Referral Mechanism 12
The Claimant’s appeal against the order for his extradition pursuant to the Request 13
The Portuguese arrest warrant 14
The evidence about the SSHD’s decision on 14 March 2024 16
The submission to the Minister for Security 16
The contents of Annex B, so far as is material 21
Attempts on behalf of the Claimant to make representations 23
Ground 1: breach of the duty to act fairly? 23
The submissions on behalf of Portugal 26
The argument on behalf of the SSHD 29
The arguments of the parties 40
Ground 3: failure to take into account relevant considerations 45
The arguments of the parties 46
Ground 4: breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 49
Section 70(11) of the Extradition Act 2003 49
Ground 5: breach of Article 4 ECHR and the ECAT 51
The arguments of the parties 51
Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 52
- 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