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
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
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 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
Surrender to Italy refused: conviction in absentia did not amount to deliberate absence from trial
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Pordenone, Italy, seeking the surrender of the requested person to serve a one-year sentence imposed after a trial held in his absence. The requested person had been informed in 2015 that he was under investigation and had elected an address in Italy, but he later moved to the United Kingdom without notifying the Italian judicial police; he was never officially informed that prosecution had commenced, nor notified of the date and place of trial. The Supreme Court held that “deliberately absented himself from his trial” under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 must be understood consistently with Article 6 ECHR as requiring an unequivocal waiver of the right to be present at trial. Mere lack of diligence in failing to keep the authorities informed of an address was not enough, especially where the requested person had not been charged, had not been told that proceedings had begun, and had not been warned that trial could proceed in his absence. The appeal was allowed, the extradition order was quashed, and the requested person was discharged.
06/03/2024 · Supreme Court of the United Kingdom · [2024] UKSC 9
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇮🇹Italy
DeniedExtradition
Extradition request from Japan certified: challenge to special extradition arrangements and diplomatic request rejected
✕
Summary
The case concerned judicial review challenges to the Secretary of State’s certification of Japan’s first extradition request to the United Kingdom, made under special extradition arrangements because no extradition treaty existed between the two States. The requested persons argued that the request was invalid because it had been issued by the Japanese National Police Agency rather than by the Government of Japan, contrary to the Memorandum of Cooperation, and because the diplomatic notes from the Japanese Embassy could not themselves constitute a valid extradition request. The Divisional Court rejected those arguments, holding that the Embassy notes expressly made or renewed a request for extradition on behalf of the Government of Japan and that the supporting police documents could properly be relied upon as part of the request. The Court further held that a formal diplomatic note issued by the Embassy could be treated as emanating from the Ambassador, acting as the diplomatic representative of Japan, and therefore satisfied the “approved way” requirement under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003. The judicial review claim was dismissed, leaving the certification of the extradition request in place.
21/12/2022 · High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court · [2022] EWHC 3281
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇯🇵Japan
DeniedExtradition
EAW to the United Kingdom granted: Brexit, return guarantee and detention conditions did not bar surrender
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States for the prosecution of the requested person for alleged wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the electronic filing of false tax returns. The requested person challenged the admissibility of extradition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the documents submitted by the United States were insufficient, that the facts for which extradition had been declared admissible were not clearly identified, and that the requirement of double criminality was not met. The Advocate General considered that the extradition documents were sufficient, including as to U.S. jurisdiction and the applicable statutory provisions. Although the description of the facts in the lower court’s decision was not entirely clear, the Advocate General considered that this could be remedied by reading the decision as referring to the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The Advocate General further found that the alleged conduct corresponded under Dutch law to fraud and forgery, and recommended dismissal of the appeal; the Supreme Court followed that conclusion under Article 81(1) RO.
03/11/2020 · Amsterdam District Court · 13/751852-19
🇳🇱Netherlands → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Granted with conditionsExtradition
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 →