![AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
The USA’s submissions
The USA’s submissions
Mr Evans, whose submissions were focussed and accurate, made two points: first, that the only decision which was sensibly open to the SSHD was the one which she took. I deal with the Additional Point later in my judgment. Second, he submitted that the SSHD’s decision was in any event appropriate or correct.
The Request predates the Warrant by two years and extradition was ordered by the SSHD seven months before the latter was issued. The proceedings in relation to the Request were lengthy, truncated and required detailed evidence in relation to a number of different areas to be provided by the US authorities.
The conduct alleged in the Request was the result of an investigation by US law enforcement. It has significantly impacted a large number of individuals and companies in the US. There is a substantial degree of overlap between the conduct alleged in the Request and in the Warrant. Whilst the Warrant also includes money laundering and tax offences, these relate to the proceeds from the alleged conduct on the RaidForums website.
Although the Claimant was physically located in Portugal when he is alleged to have committed the offences, the victims identified were predominantly located in the US and the harm was most significantly felt there.
- 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