🇬🇧 United Kingdom → 🇯🇵 Japan

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.

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.