United Kingdom Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving United Kingdom — Requested and Requesting State

🇬🇧

United Kingdom

United Kingdom Extradition Law & Case Law — 32 cases

17
As requested
state
15
As requesting
state
Case Law
State immunity denied for remote spyware hacking causing injury in the United Kingdom
✕
Summary
Two Bahraini pro-democracy activists brought civil proceedings alleging that agents of Bahrain had remotely infected their computers in the United Kingdom with spyware, conducted intrusive surveillance and caused them psychiatric injury. By a majority, the Supreme Court held that section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applies where legally causative acts occur in the United Kingdom, even though the operation was initiated abroad and the foreign State’s agents were never physically present there. The installation and operation of spyware on computers located in the United Kingdom, including the accessing and exfiltration of data and activation of cameras and microphones, constituted causative acts within the jurisdiction. Bahrain was therefore not entitled to State immunity, and its appeal was dismissed; Lord Leggatt dissented, considering that an act occurs where the human actor is located rather than where its effects are produced.
27/07/2026 · Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2026] UKSC 25
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇧🇭Bahrain
Procedural orderOther
The four-month extradition threshold is assessed by reference to the total sentence imposed, not its individual components (Tobosaru & Tofan v Romania)
✕
Summary
The High Court dismissed two appeals against extradition orders to Romania and confirmed that, in conviction cases involving multiple offences, the four-month threshold is assessed by reference to the single aggregate, merged or cumulated sentence imposed by the requesting State. The executing court is not required to disaggregate that sentence or determine the portion attributable to each individual offence, even where some underlying conduct does not satisfy double criminality, provided that the specialty principle protects the requested person after surrender. The Court held that Pilecki v Poland remains binding after Brexit and is consistent with both sections 10 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 599 of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. It also rejected the Article 8 challenges and recorded that two non-existent authorities, apparently originating from unverified use of generative artificial intelligence, had been cited in earlier prosecution submissions but had no effect on the appeal.
08/07/2026 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court · [2026] EWHC 1720 (Admin)
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedExtradition
Surrender refused where deliberate absence was not established and retrial rights depended on a further judicial determination
✕
Summary
Greece sought the surrender of a married couple to serve sentences imposed in their absence for grievous bodily harm with intent and assisting the offender. The Court held that the issuing judicial authority had not proved that the requested persons deliberately absented themselves from trial, since there was insufficient evidence that they knew of the scheduled proceedings or had unequivocally waived their right to attend. Their possibility of obtaining a retrial was also insufficient under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 because it depended on the Greek court first determining that specified procedural conditions, a breach of procedural rules or force majeure had been established. The Court additionally found that assurances concerning their detention could not be relied upon in light of two significant previous breaches and that surrender would therefore expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR; both requested persons were discharged.
28/05/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇬🇷Greece
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Poland and Article 8 ECHR: assistance provided to a former partner does not amount to “familiy life”
✕
Summary
Regular assistance and emotional support provided to a former partner suffering from mental health issues are insufficient, absent stable de facto family ties, to establish “family life” protected under Article 8 ECHR in extradition proceedings; furthermore, only exceptionally severe interference with private or family life may justify refusal of extradition on proportionality grounds.
06/05/2026 · Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) · [2026] HCJAC 15
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇵🇱Poland
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Norway granted: article 8 family life challenge rejected despite child’s special needs
✕
Summary
The case concerned an appeal against an order for extradition to Norway to serve a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for an aggravated drug offence involving the storage of a large quantity of heroin. The appellant, a Norwegian national with settled status in the United Kingdom, argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s Article 8 ECHR rights, relying in particular on the serious developmental needs of his youngest child, the health needs of other children, and the practical and emotional burden that would fall on his wife. The High Court admitted fresh evidence concerning the child’s autism diagnosis and the family’s updated circumstances, and carried out a fresh Article 8 balancing exercise. It accepted that extradition would have a serious detrimental impact on the family, especially the youngest child, but held that the public interest in extradition carried very substantial weight because the appellant was a fugitive, had deliberately avoided serving a lengthy sentence, and had been convicted of a serious Class A drugs offence. The appeal was dismissed, although the Court deferred the date on which the extradition order would take effect to allow statutory services time to put support in place for the child.
20/04/2026 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court · [2026] EWHC 894
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇳🇴Norway
GrantedExtradition
Temporal application of Extradition Law and the UK-EU TCA and refusal based on nationality
✕
Summary
The UK requested that Portugal surrender a Portuguese national accused of murder. At the time the international arrest warrant was issued, the EU notification made on behalf of Portugal under Article 603(2) of the EU‑UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement stated that Portugal would only surrender Portuguese nationals, on a reciprocal basis, in cases of terrorism or organised crime. When the requested person was arrested, a new notification was already in force, which no longer restricted the surrender of Portuguese nationals in those cases.The Portuguese Supreme Court held that, under the rules governing the temporal application of extradition law, the relevant notification was the one in force when the international arrest warrant was issued. Consequently, Portugal could not grant the surrender of one of its own nationals in a case that did not involve terrorism or organised crime.
09/04/2026 · Portuguese Supreme Court · 370/26.0YRLSB.S1
🇵🇹Portugal → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to India: application to reopen appeal refused after sssurances against interrogation
✕
Summary
The case concerned an application by the requested person to reopen his extradition appeal against surrender to India, following an earlier dismissal of his Article 3 ECHR and health-based objections. He argued that the later judgment in Bhandari v Government of India revealed a real risk of torture or ill-treatment during custodial interrogation by Indian investigative agencies, and that this risk also applied to him because several agencies might seek to question him after extradition. The Divisional Court accepted that, without adequate assurances, the application to reopen would have had considerable force, given the findings in Bhandari concerning the use of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions. However, the Court held that India had provided comprehensive, detailed and reliable assurances that the requested person would not be interrogated by the CBI, the ED or any other investigative agency without prior recourse to the United Kingdom authorities, and that those assurances were given in good faith and were binding at the diplomatic level. Since the assurances were sufficient to remove any real practical risk of interrogation and ill-treatment, the Court refused permission to reopen the extradition appeal.
25/03/2026 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court · [2026] EWHC 716
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇮🇳India
GrantedExtradition
48-year delay in seeking surrender does not in itself constitute an abuse of process
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal of Ireland dismissed appeals against the surrender of two requested persons to Northern Ireland under TCA arrest warrants for offences allegedly committed in 1975 and 1976. Addressing a delay of approximately 48 years in seeking surrender, the Court held that poor administration, maladministration or unexplained inactivity by the issuing State does not, in itself, render a surrender request an abuse of process or justify refusal; rather, the executing judicial authority must assess the reasons for and consequences of the delay together with the requested person’s fundamental rights and apply a proportionality test. Abuse of process requires misuse of the surrender mechanism capable of undermining its integrity, such as failure to cooperate with the executing court, false or misleading information, or use of the procedure for an improper purpose, none of which was established in these cases. The Court also held that the requested persons’ family lives, health conditions and long residence in Ireland did not amount to exceptional circumstances capable of outweighing the public interest in surrender for serious historic offences. In respect of one requested person, the Court further held that a 1978 decision refusing extradition under the former political-offence regime did not create a vested right or permanent immunity from surrender following the replacement of that regime by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
16/03/2026 · Court of Appeal of Ireland · [2026] IECA 53
🇮🇪Ireland → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
GrantedOther
Extradition to Ukraine refused: cumulative Article 8 factors outweighed public interest despite assurances
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by Ukraine for the extradition of a sitting Ukrainian Member of Parliament to stand trial for alleged violent offences committed in 2022 and 2023. The requested person resisted extradition on several grounds, arguing that the proceedings were politically and religiously motivated, that he had previously been ill-treated by Ukrainian security officers, that the ongoing armed conflict created risks under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, and that he would face unfair trial, arbitrary detention, religious persecution and oppression due to ill health. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court rejected the objections based on political motivation, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 ECHR, ill health and abuse of process, holding in particular that Ukraine’s specific and verifiable assurances were sufficient to neutralise the identified risks. However, the Court accepted that the requested person had previously been subjected to ill-treatment in SBU custody and considered that this, together with his public perception as sympathetic to Russia, the residual risks arising from the armed conflict, his family circumstances, and the comparatively limited seriousness and likely penal consequences of the alleged offences, created an exceptional cumulative picture. The Court therefore held that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and ordered discharge under section 87(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.
04/03/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court · The Government of Ukraine v Artem Dmytruk
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇦Ukraine
GrantedExtradition
Extradition: identification of the sought person may be inferred from circumstantial evidence
✕
Summary
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta ordered the committal of the person sought for extradition to the United Kingdom in connection with historical allegations of physical and sexual abuse of minors. The Court held that the Record of the Case established a prima facie case and that the identity of the person sought as the alleged perpetrator (“Brother Peter”) could be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including employment records, witness descriptions and institutional documents. The defence relied on alibi evidence and discrepancies in employment timelines, but the Court found that such elements merely raised competing inferences and did not render the requesting state’s evidence manifestly unreliable. Issues concerning credibility, identification gaps and potential defences were deemed matters for trial, not for the extradition stage.
18/02/2026 · Court of King’s Bench of Alberta · 2026 ABKB 115
🇨🇦Canada → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to USA for bomb attacks linked to animal testing: articles 3 and 6 ECHR challenges rejected
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by the United States for the extradition of the requested person to stand trial for several bombing offences allegedly committed in California in 2003 against companies linked to animal testing activities. The defence argued that extradition should be barred because of the risk of prejudice connected to the requested person’s political beliefs, alleged defects in the superseding indictment, and potential violations of Articles 3 and 6 ECHR arising from detention conditions and possible political interference by the current U.S. administration. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court rejected those arguments, holding that the proceedings concerned ordinary violent criminal offences and that there was no concrete evidence of political motivation or improper executive interference. The Court further held that the requested person would benefit from the procedural guarantees of the U.S. federal justice system, including legal representation, independent judicial oversight, and appellate remedies. Extradition was therefore ordered, the Court finding no violation of Articles 3 or 6 ECHR.
06/02/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court · The Government of the United States of America -v- Daniel Andreas San Diego
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom and surrender of the defendant for participation in proceedings against him
✕
Summary
In the matter of an arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom on the basis of the so-called Partnership Agreement of 24 December 2020, the decision by which the Italian judicial authority, granting a request coming from the foreign authority, orders the surrender of the person for the purposes of participation in the proceedings against him, does not violate the principle of proportionality set out in Article 597 of the Agreement, following an assessment of the seriousness of the facts and of the interests of the victim, in the event that, for the same purposes, procedural options less invasive of personal liberty have been unsuccessfully attempted. (In application of the principle, the Court considered proportionate the surrender of the applicant in order to ensure his physical participation, instead of participation by videoconference, in a trial for sexual abuse, the said person having left Great Britain, while the trial was pending, as soon as he had been released on bail).
28/10/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 35451/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
GrantedExtradition
Two precautionary measure orders based on the same arrest warrant and ne bis in idem principle
✕
Summary
The application in Italy of a custodial measure for the purpose of executing an international arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed on 24 December 2020, in relation to criminal proceedings pending before its judicial authorities, does not violate the ne bis in idem principle where, on the basis of the same warrant, a custodial measure has already been ordered by another State—namely, Poland—but the person concerned has in the meantime absconded from it. This is because, notwithstanding the existence of two enforcement measures relating to the same arrest warrant, only a single set of criminal proceedings is pending against the person in the issuing State.
25/09/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 32241/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Remaining sentence calculation and principle of speciality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United Kingdom against H.D.B. for the execution of the remaining portion of a sentence imposed for intentional bodily harm.The extradition request arose after the requested person allegedly violated parole conditions relating to a six-year prison sentence imposed by the Wood Green Crown Court in 2008.The Aydın 4th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the sentence had effectively been completed following release in 2019;- the UK execution system had subsequently changed;- extradition would expose the requested person to disproportionate and inhuman punishment;- the extradition request failed to clearly specify the remaining executable sentence;- specialty-principle safeguards were insufficient.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently determine the exact remaining custodial sentence still executable in the United Kingdom.The Court emphasized that:- extradition detention may not exceed the remaining enforceable sentence;- proportionality assessment required clarification of the precise balance of sentence remaining;- supplementary information should have been requested from the requesting State.The Court further held that the judgment inadequately addressed specialty-principle protections under Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6232, K. 2025/9055
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Competing extradition requests: decision to prioritise the United States quashed for unfairness and factual errors
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Portuguese national facing two competing extradition claims for substantially overlapping cybercrime-related conduct: a United States extradition request under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and a Portuguese arrest warrant under Part 1. The requested person preferred extradition to Portugal and challenged the Home Secretary’s decision under section 179 of the 2003 Act to defer the Portuguese warrant until the United States request had been disposed of. The High Court held that the decision-making process was procedurally unfair because the Home Secretary had refused to receive representations from the requested person, the United States and Portugal, despite the significant consequences of choosing between competing extradition claims. Relying also on the CJEU judgment in OP v Procureur de la République, the Court interpreted section 179 consistently with the need to consider all the circumstances of the case, including the interests of the requested person. The Court further found that the decision was vitiated by material factual errors and by a failure to take relevant considerations into account, and therefore quashed the decision so that the matter could be reconsidered by the Home Secretary.
11/09/2025 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court · [2025] EWHC 2293
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
Procedural orderExtradition
Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland – relevance of early release in Article 8 proportionality
✕
Summary
The UK Supreme Court considered whether, in extradition cases based on conviction warrants, courts may take into account the possibility of early release under the law of the requesting State when assessing proportionality under Article 8 ECHR.The appellant was sought by Poland to serve a two‑year sentence for fraud. She argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her private and family life, partly because she might be eligible for early release under Polish law.The Court reviewed conflicting approaches in domestic case law and held that the mere possibility of early release is relevant but carries little weight. Courts in the requested State should not attempt to predict the likelihood of early release, as this would involve speculative assessment of foreign law and undermine principles of international comity.Only in rare and exceptional cases, supported by clear evidence, may a court attach greater weight to early release prospects. Ultimately, the Court endorsed a cautious approach: acknowledging early release as a factor but generally giving it minimal significance in the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise.Although the extradition warrant was withdrawn (as the sentence had effectively been served), the Court ruled on the legal issues due to their general importance.
11/06/2025 · UK Supreme Court · [2025] UKSC 23
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇵🇱Poland
Procedural orderExtradition
Surrender to the United Kingdom, proportionality and the risk of a violation of fundamental rights
✕
Summary
Where, under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the need to secure the physical presence of the requested person in criminal proceedings appears, in abstract terms, compatible with the objectives of the cooperation instrument, this does not exempt the judicial authority of the executing State from carrying out the substantive assessments entrusted to it, namely compliance with the principle of proportionality. It is therefore necessary to assess the impact of surrender on the person’s family life, on the relationship with minor children and on their needs for care and protection, especially where the person is the sole parent of two very young children and there exists, in abstract terms, the possibility of securing the person’s presence by means of a video-link (excluded by the UK court not because such a tool is unavailable or prohibited under domestic law, but on discretionary grounds of expediency).
28/02/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 8851/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition to India refused due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and insufficient diplomatic assurances (Bhandari case)
✕
Summary
The High Court of England and Wales allowed the appeal against an extradition order to India in relation to financial offences, finding that surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court relied on detailed evidence concerning detention conditions and the use of coercion by investigative authorities, concluding that the diplomatic assurances provided were insufficient to mitigate that risk. The Court further held that the applicant would face a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, in light of procedural features of the criminal system, including provisions capable of reversing the burden of proof. On this basis, extradition was barred under Articles 3 and 6 ECHR, and the appellant was discharged.
28/02/2025 · UK High Court of Justice · AC-2023-LON-000514
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇮🇳India
DeniedExtradition
Double criminality not satisfied: alleged insider dealing occurred outside the United States
✕
Summary
The United States sought the extradition of a dual British and Lebanese national to face charges arising from an alleged insider-dealing scheme involving confidential information about companies listed on US stock exchanges. The Supreme Court held that, for the purposes of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003, the location of the conduct must be determined by identifying where the requested person’s relevant physical acts occurred, rather than where their effects were felt. As the substance of the alleged conduct occurred in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, the stricter test applicable to extraterritorial conduct under section 137(4) applied. Equivalent conduct in corresponding circumstances would not fall within the territorial scope of the relevant UK insider-dealing or money-laundering offences; the Court therefore allowed the appeal, discharged the requested person and quashed the extradition order.
12/02/2025 · Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2025] UKSC 3
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇺🇸United States
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Japan: assurances sufficient to address human rights risks and prima facie case established
✕
Summary
The case concerned appeals by Japan against the discharge of two requested persons whose extradition was sought for prosecution for an alleged robbery in Tokyo. The first-instance judge had found, in one case, that there was no prima facie case and, in both cases, that extradition would be incompatible with Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 ECHR because of risks arising from Japanese detention conditions, interrogation practices, access to lawyers, compulsory prison labour and the absence of bail during the pre-indictment period. The Divisional Court held that there was sufficient admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case against the first requested person and that the detailed assurances provided by Japan in March 2024, supplemented by further assurances in October 2024, were sufficient in practice to remove the risks identified under Articles 3 and 6 ECHR. It also held that compulsory prison work in Japan fell within work required in the ordinary course of detention under Article 4(3)(a) ECHR, and that the alleged Article 5 issue did not amount to a flagrant breach in the extradition context. The appeals were therefore allowed and the discharge orders were set aside.
29/01/2025 · High Court of Justice, Divisional Court · Government of Japan v Chappell and Wright [2025] EWHC 166
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇯🇵Japan
GrantedExtradition
Country Contributor
Edward Grange
Corker Binning
Edward Grange is regarded as one of the leading extradition lawyers in the UK, advising on complex, high-stakes extradition, international criminal, and serious criminal matters.
He is recognised as a Star Individual for Crime: Extradition in Chambers UK 2026, where he is described as “a fantastic extradition lawyer – the best of the best.”
He is widely recognised for advising individuals in complex, sensitive, and often high-profile cases with significant international dimensions. With over 18 years’ specialist experience, he has advised and represented individuals facing extradition to jurisdictions across the world and has an exceptional track record in successfully resisting extradition requests. His work includes defeating requests from the United States, Russia, India, and the United Arab Emirates. He has conducted hundreds of extradition cases arising from almost every EU member state and was a member of the legal team advising Julian Assange.
His extradition expertise places Edward at the forefront of legal challenges involving INTERPOL. He regularly advises individuals who are subject to, or at risk of becoming subject to, INTERPOL Red Notices and diffusion requests. He has successfully made representations to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) securing the deletion of Red Notices and, in pre-emptive cases, preventing notices from being issued altogether.
Edward is an experienced criminal defence lawyer with a career spanning all stages of the criminal process, from police station representation through to contested trials. His criminal litigation practice covers the full spectrum of serious criminal allegations, including complex fraud, serious sexual offences, and offences involving serious violence. He has particular expertise in representing children and young people accused of grave criminal conduct, having spent many years practising extensively in the London Youth Courts. He also advises on road traffic offences, from regulatory matters through to allegations of causing death by dangerous driving.
Edward is the co-author of Extradition Law: A Practitioner’s Guide (Legal Action Group, 3rd edition, 2021), the leading practitioner text on the subject. He is the co-founder and former Chair of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum and was elected to the Advisory Board of the European Criminal Bar Association in October 2024. He has given expert evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee on Extradition, with his evidence featuring extensively in its final report. Edward is also a regular commentator in the national and international media on extradition law and cross-border criminal justice
Edward is the co-host of Corker Binning’s podcast, Full Comment, where he discusses developments in criminal law, extradition, and cross-border investigations.
Country Contributor
Rebecca Niblock
Kingsley Napley
Rebecca specialises in extradition and cross-border criminal matters. She advises individuals, families and family offices facing complex criminal investigations, extradition proceedings and cross-border enforcement action with an international dimension.
Her practice focuses on extradition, INTERPOL and mutual legal assistance (MLA) requests, as well as wider cross-border enforcement issues. Many of her cases involve sensitive issues and require careful coordination across multiple jurisdictions, often alongside reputational or political considerations. Her work frequently involves matters where criminal proceedings intersect with reputational, political or diplomatic considerations.
Rebecca also represents clients in serious and complex financial crime matters, including allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption, and in investigations conducted by agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Conduct Authority. She is particularly experienced in cases involving parallel proceedings or competing enforcement interests in different jurisdictions.
She has extensive experience acting in extradition cases involving requests from the United States, EU member states, India and jurisdictions across the Middle East and the CIS. She regularly leads high-stakes matters raising complex issues of international law, human rights and abuse of process.
Rebecca works closely with private client advisers, trustees and reputation specialists when managing cross-border criminal risk for individuals and families.
She is ranked as a Star Individual for Extradition by Chambers and Partners and as a Leading Partner in Legal 500.
Rebecca is co-author of Extradition Law: A Practitioner’s Guide, one of the leading texts in the field, and contributes regularly to legal and policy discussions on cross-border criminal enforcement.
She holds a PhD in the History of Art from the University of Bristol.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving United Kingdom

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →