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

On 10 August 2023, the Claimant appealed to the High Court against the decision of District Judge Sternberg. Perfected Grounds of Appeal were filed on 25 October 2023. These challenge the Claimant’s extradition as being contrary to section 83A of the 2003 Act, Articles 3, 4 and 8 ECHR and section 91 of the 2003 Act.

On 27 February 2024, the Claimant’s representatives notified the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) of the Warrant which had recently been issued by Portugal and applied to the Administrative Court for directions in the appeal proceedings. The SSHD was not copied in to this correspondence. The Claimant explained that the SSHD would now have to consider two competing claims for extradition under section 179 of the 2003 Act. It was asserted that this decision would “need to take priority over the extant appeal”. Directions were sought “for counsel to first address the issue of competing extradition requests and the timing of the statutory Ministerial decision that will now be made pursuant to section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 and second, …..to permit the Applicant to amend his grounds of appeal to address this factual development”. 

On 4 March 2024, the CPS indicated on behalf of the USA that the SSHD had not yet made a decision under section 179 of the 2003 Act, that there were no grounds to stay the appeal proceedings and that permission to amend the Grounds of Appeal was opposed. However, on 7 March 2024, the Administrative Court gave the Claimant’s representatives 7 days to formulate amended Grounds of Appeal. This deadline was then extended by Jay J to 22 March 2024.

On 22 March 2024, the Claimant filed draft Amended Grounds of Appeal. These argued that extradition to Portugal was now a proportionate alternative to extradition to the USA and that it would therefore be disproportionate to extradite the Claimant to the USA and incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. If he were extradited to the USA, the Claimant would be in an alien prison environment and a long way from family and friends who could support and assist him given his vulnerability arising from his autism. The draft Amended Grounds went on to argue that the availability of extradition to Portugal served to reinforce, in various respects, the existing Grounds of Appeal based on Articles 3 and 8 ECHR/forum, and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003.

In a response dated 15 April 2024, the USA opposed any stay of the appeal. It also argued that the fact that the Claimant had consented to his extradition to Portugal did not make any difference to the analysis of his appeal against extradition to the USA and/or would not have resulted in the District Judge deciding the questions before him differently: see section 104(4)(b) of the 2003 Act.

On 16 April 2024, Jay J refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal on the papers. In relation to the proposed amended grounds of appeal, Jay J said this:

“In my view, A must raise these points in JR proceedings rather than in the current forum. In essence, these Amended Grounds are directed to the exercise of the SSHD’s discretion…I cannot see how A is entitled to contend in these appeal proceedings (whether here or below) that they should somehow be stayed. The correct course, if any, is to apply to the JR court and obtain interim relief there.”

On 24 May 2024, the Claimant filed the Claim and applied for urgent interim relief in the form of an order staying his appeal against extradition to the USA pending the final determination of the judicial review proceedings. On 6 June 2024, Julian Knowles J granted that application and vacated the hearing of the Claimant’s renewed application for permission to appeal which had been listed for 11 June 2024.