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

Fecha: 11-Sep-2025

The issues for determination

The issues for determination

The Claimant advances five grounds of challenge which are reflected in a “List of Issues Agreed Between Claimant and Defendant”:

The Decision was procedurally unfair in that the SSHD did not consider any representations, information or material provided by the Claimant or the Portuguese authorities which was relevant to the test to be applied (“Ground 1”);

ii)

The Decision was based on material errors of fact (“Ground 2”);

iii)

It was irrational by reason of a failure on the part of the Defendant to take into account relevant considerations (“Ground 3”);

iv)

It was in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in that the SSHD did not take into account the impact of the Decision on the Claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) (“Ground 4”);

The Decision was in breach of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (“ECAT”) and/or Article 4 ECHR (“Ground 5”).

The agreed list of issues also identified as an issue the question whether the relief sought by the Claimant – a quashing order and an order that the Defendant reconsider her decision – should be granted, albeit no specific reason for refusing relief was identified.

In its Detailed Grounds of Defence, however, it was pleaded on behalf of the USA that it “question[ed] whether it would sensibly have been open to [the SSHD] to make” the order which the Claimant contends she ought to have made, given the terms of section 179(2) of the 2003 Act. That would have been an order under section 179(2)(c), deferring the extradition of the Claimant pursuant to the USA’s Request until Portugal’s Warrant had been “disposed of”. In law, the Warrant had already been “disposed of” as at the date of the Decision. Such an order therefore would not have made sense. Mr Evans’ submission was that, on the true construction of section 179, as at 14 March 2024 when the Decision was taken, it was not open to the SSHD to make an order under section 179(2)(c). The only decision which was open to her was the one which she took, whether or not she appreciated that this was the position at the time.

The skeleton arguments of the Claimant and the SSHD addressed the issues agreed between them. Neither therefore addressed Mr Evans’ point. Nor did Mr Cooper do so in his oral submissions on behalf of the Claimant. In her oral submissions on behalf of the SSHD, Ms Cumberland KC then stated for the first time that her first submission was that Mr Evans’ argument was correct. She developed this argument and submitted, in effect, that the Claim was academic and/or relief should be refused because there was no other decision which the SSHD could lawfully have taken at the time. Mr Cooper then addressed Mr Evans’ point in his reply but, with respect to him, it appeared that his answer would benefit from further consideration. As Ms Cumberland had materially altered her case, I gave him an opportunity to put his position in writing.

Written submissions on behalf of the Claimant, dated 9 July 2025, were then made. The USA and the SSHD submitted their replies on 14 and 16 July 2025 and the Claimant replied to them on 20 July 2025. I deal with what I will call “the Additional Point” below.

10.

In addition to these issues in the Claim:

There was an application by the Claimant, dated 20 June 2025, to rely on the following evidence: a letter of Joanna Stankiewicz, therapist, dated 3 June 2005; the Report of Dr B.A. Donner, Clinical Psychologist, dated 9 April 2025; the Report of Henrique Salinas, Attorney, dated 11 June 2025; and a letter of Ms Ahmetaj, therapist, dated 13 June 2025. This application was opposed by the SSHD and the USA.

ii)

Shortly after 4pm on the day before the hearing there was an application on behalf of the Claimant to admit a witness statement made by Mr Guy Mitchell of Hodge Jones and Allen LLP on 1 July 2025. This evidence was said to go to Ground 1.

iii)

On 5 August 2025, as a result of further probing from me whilst I was writing this judgment, it emerged that the court and the parties other than the SSHD had been misinformed as to what documents were before the SSHD when the Decision was made. This meant that the case had been pleaded, and submissions made at the hearing, on the basis of a materially inaccurate understanding of what information was taken into account by the SSHD. Further written submissions were then made by the parties as to the implications of this discovery at such a late stage in the proceedings.

11.

I deal with these further issues below.