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

As is well known, the Extradition Act 2003 makes provision for extradition to Category 1 territories – EU Member States including Portugal - under Part 1. Part 2 deals with extradition to Category 2 territories i.e. other States with which the United Kingdom has extradition arrangements, including the USA.

In a Part 1 case, the process begins with the judicial authority issuing an arrest warrant which then requires to be certified under section 2 by the National Crime Agency. In a Part 2 case it begins with a request for extradition which requires to be certified by the SSHD pursuant to section 70.

In each case, in England and Wales the question whether the requested person should be extradited is dealt with in the first instance in the Magistrates’ Court. In a Part 1 case, the District Judge may order extradition but in a Part 2 case they are required to send the decision to the SSHD, pursuant to section 87(3), for a decision as to whether the person should be extradited. Under section 93, the SSHD is then required to decide whether she is prohibited from ordering the person’s extradition by specified sections of the 2003 Act including, for example, section 94 which prohibits extradition if the person faces the death penalty unless an appropriate written assurance is given by the requesting State. The District Judge’s and SSHD’s decisions are subject to appeal to the High Court and, under both Parts, there may be an appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance.

Parts 1 and 2 of the 2003 Act set out parallel processes for determining whether the requested person should be extradited to the requesting State, specifying in some detail what should happen in the light of each of the possible outcomes at each stage of the process. This includes dealing with the situation where there is more than one request or arrest warrant in relation to the same person. Sections 44 and 48 deal with the powers of the District Judge in the Magistrates’ Court and what they are required to do where they are informed that there are competing Part 1 warrants. Section 126 deals with what the SSHD may do where there are competing Part 2 requests, and section 179 deals with the situation where there is a Part 1 warrant and a Part 2 request in relation to the same person i.e. the situation which arose in the present case.

Section 179 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as material, as follows:

“179 Competing claims to extradition

(1)

This section applies if at the same time—

(a)

there is a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person, a certificate has been issued under section 2 in respect of the warrant, and the person has not been extradited in pursuance of the warrant or discharged, and

(b)

there is a request for the same person's extradition, a certificate has been issued under section 70 in respect of the request, and the person has not been extradited in pursuance of the request or discharged.

(2)

The Secretary of State may—

(a)

order proceedings (or further proceedings) on one of them (the warrant or the request) to be deferred until the other one has been disposed of, if neither the warrant nor the request has been disposed of;

(b)

order the person's extradition in pursuance of the warrant to be deferred until the request has been disposed of, if an order for his extradition in pursuance of the warrant has been made;

(c)

order the person's extradition in pursuance of the request to be deferred until the warrant has been disposed of, if an order for his extradition in pursuance of the request has been made.

(3)

In applying subsection (2) the Secretary of State must take account in particular of these matters—

(a)

the relative seriousness of the offences concerned;

(b)

the place where each offence was committed (or was alleged to have been committed);

(c)

the date when the warrant was issued and the date when the request was received;

(d)

whether, in the case of each offence, the person is accused of its commission (but not alleged to have been convicted) or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction.”

As Mr Cooper emphasised, section 44 makes materially the same provision for the situation where a District Judge who is dealing with a warrant is informed that another warrant has been issued in respect of the same person. In such a case the judge may order proceedings on, or extradition pursuant to, the warrant under consideration to be deferred until the other warrant has been disposed of. It is also specified in section 44(7) that, in deciding this matter, the judge must take into account, in particular, the same matters as the SSHD is required to consider under section 179(3) of the 2003 Act. The approach is essentially the same under section 126 where there are competing Part 2 requests.

In characteristically prescriptive fashion sections 180 and 181 follow up, respectively, with what is to happen where an order is made pursuant to section 179(2)(a) and then (b) or (c):