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

Fecha: 11-Sep-2025

The decision of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in relation to the USA’s request for the extradition of the Claimant

33.

The extradition hearing in relation to the Request took place before District Judge Sternberg between 27 February and 1 March 2023, when the evidence was heard, and then on 25 April 2023 when closing submissions were made.

34.

The Claimant was represented by Mr Cooper and Ms Nice. They argued that his extradition was barred on multiple grounds. These included that it would be contrary to section 81(b) of the 2003 Act (i.e. he would face prejudice by reason of nationality) and that it was barred by section 83A of the 2003 Act (i.e. on the basis that a substantial measure of his relevant activity took place in the United Kingdom, and extradition to the USA would not be in the interests of justice). They also argued that his extradition to the USA would be contrary to various articles of the ECHR namely Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14; and that it would be contrary to section 91 of the 2003 Act (i.e. that his extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of his mental health).

35.

On 7 June 2023, District Judge Sternberg handed down a detailed written judgment, rejecting the Claimant’s objections to extradition and sending his case to the SSHD pursuant to section 87(3) of the 2003 Act. For present purposes it is relevant to note that:

The District Judge accepted that the Claimant has a diagnosis of autism which was first identified in the course of the extradition proceedings. The expert witnesses agreed that he is intelligent and communicative and he was described by them as “high functioning”. However, he would find incarceration in a prison in the USA a challenging and potentially frightening and bewildering experience, and there was a high risk of deterioration in his mental health in the event of his surrender.

ii)

The experts also agreed that the Claimant had taken a decision to end his own life in the event of his extradition to the USA, potentially following the imposition of a long sentence. This was a decision which he had taken consciously rather than because of the effect of an underlying mental illness. The District Judge accepted that although the current risk of suicide was low, the Claimant would be at high or elevated risk of suicide in the event of extradition to the USA. He had thought through taking his own life in a rational and hyper-logical way such that, once he has arrived at that decision, it will be difficult for him to change his mind.

iii)

The District Judge said that he could not conclude that the Claimant was ‘groomed’ by older people into starting to commit the offences alleged. To do so would be to trespass into matters which were for the trial court to determine in the light of all of the evidence on the issue. Nor could he determine whether the Claimant was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery.

iv)

In the context of the arguments about forum under section 83A of the 2003 Act, the District Judge accepted that, although there was reference in the indictment to the Claimant being the controller and chief operator of RaidForums from at least or around 1 January 2015, the bulk of the criminal activity alleged against the Claimant was committed when he was living in Portugal rather than when he was in the United Kingdom. In particular, Count 1 spans approximately 4.5 years from June 2016 to the end of January 2022 and the specific alleged overt acts took place from 6 June 2018 onwards, whereas the Claimant was taken back to Portugal by his father in November 2016. The activities alleged in Counts 2-6 began later and finished earlier than the time span for Count 1. Any relevant activity which did occur in the United Kingdom was therefore minor, rather than a substantial part of what was alleged against the Claimant.

The Warrant had not been issued at the time of the District Judge’s decision. However, in the context of the Claimant’s argument that his extradition to the USA would be contrary to Article 8 ECHR because of the possibility of a trial in Portugal, the District Judge said that he did not consider that it was appropriate to speculate as to whether the Claimant could be tried there. In any event, he had no power to determine whether the Claimant ought to be tried in Portugal or to enforce such a decision. The Claimant was not entitled to choose where he should be prosecuted and, accordingly, this consideration could not be given a great deal of weight.

36.

On 28 July 2023, the SSHD ordered the extradition of the Claimant to the USA pursuant to section 93(4) of the 2003 Act.