Lady Justice Andrews, giving the lead Court of Appeal judgment on 28 September 2026, would allow the Home Secretary's appeal in part in a case about choosing between competing US and Portuguese extradition requests.
Key facts
- Who: People who are the subject of competing extradition requests, one under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (such as an EU state) and one under Part 2 (such as the USA)
- From: 28 September 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Diogo Santos Coelho, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment in R (Coelho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219 on 28 September 2026. Lady Justice Andrews gave the lead judgment, with Lord Justice Edis and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker on the panel.
Background. Diogo Santos Coelho, a 26-year-old Portuguese national, is the subject of extradition requests from the USA and Portugal over alleged cybercrime between 2014 and 2022. Both concern the RaidForums website. He accepts involvement but says he was groomed and coerced by adults he met online. The USA made its request in March 2022, and the Home Secretary ordered his extradition to the USA in July 2023. Portugal issued a warrant in February 2024. On 14 March 2024 the Minister of State for Security, acting for the Home Secretary, decided under section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 to defer the Portuguese proceedings until the US request was disposed of.
In April 2024 he was found to be a victim of modern slavery, and he has been assessed as at "extremely high risk" of suicide if extradited to the USA. In the High Court, Mr Justice Linden quashed the priority decision for procedural unfairness, material errors of fact and irrationality.
The question. Does procedural fairness require that a person who is the subject of competing extradition requests can make representations to the Home Secretary before she decides which takes priority?
The decision. Lady Justice Andrews held that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction. This meant the case did not have to go to the Supreme Court as a "criminal cause or matter", as Mr Coelho's counsel had argued. She would grant permission to appeal and allow the appeal on the first two grounds:
- that the High Court erred in ruling it procedurally unfair not to consider his representations
- that the High Court erred in extending the factors the Home Secretary may take into account under section 179 to include the interests of the person to be extradited.
She would dismiss the appeal on the third ground, and said that when the fresh decision is taken, it must be taken on an accurate factual basis.
Reasoning. Section 179(3) says the Home Secretary must take account "in particular" of:
- the relative seriousness of the offences
- where each offence was committed
- the dates of the warrant and request
- whether the person is accused or alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction.
The judgment also set out the history. After the Scott Baker review, amendments in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 removed human rights matters from the Home Secretary's consideration. They provided for the High Court to consider human rights matters arising after the statutory appeal process and after extradition has been ordered. The judgment noted the emphasis on speed in extradition and the very strict appeal time limits.
Later developments. The parties told the Court of Appeal that Mr Coelho has since been tried and convicted in his absence in Portugal and sentenced to 34 months' imprisonment, ten suspended. Portugal has replaced its original warrant with a conviction warrant. The USA has indicated it does not intend to withdraw its request, so a fresh section 179 decision will have to be taken. The judgment said the appeal raises important issues of principle likely to arise in other cases.
What this means for people facing competing extradition requests
The judgment concerns the Home Secretary's decision under section 179 on which request takes priority, and the factors she may take into account. In the lead judgment, Lady Justice Andrews would allow her appeal on the grounds about representations and the interests of the person to be extradited. The judgment explains that 2013 amendments removed human rights matters from the Home Secretary's consideration, with the High Court considering human rights matters arising after the statutory appeal process and after extradition is ordered. The judgment also notes that time limits for appealing in extradition cases are very strict.
Sources
- Diogo Santos Coelho, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 28 September 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/1219