Manzarpour, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying receipt of an extradition request may lawfully be maintained to prevent evasion of extradition. Considering an individual’s circumstances does not, without more, convert that blanket policy into a policy permitting exceptional departures. The protections afforded by the Extradition Act 2003, including safeguards concerning double jeopardy, dual criminality, human rights and abuse of process, are ordinarily matters for the extradition court. There is no independent anterior duty on the Secretary of State to determine those issues before an extradition request leads to judicial proceedings.

The claimant, a British citizen living in Iran, sought permission to challenge the Secretary of State’s refusal to confirm or deny whether the United States had made an extradition request. He had previously been arrested and detained in Poland pursuant to a United States request, but the Polish court concluded that extradition would be unlawful.

The claimant feared renewed proceedings concerning similar conduct and relied on the previous proceedings, his health, family circumstances, alleged abuse of process, double jeopardy, dual criminality and Convention rights. Collins J had refused permission on the papers. The renewed application concerned whether the Secretary of State had unlawfully considered the claimant’s circumstances or had adopted an exceptional-circumstances qualification to the NCND policy.

1. Application refused. The blanket policy of neither confirming nor denying whether an extradition request had been made or received was lawful. Its purpose was to prevent a person from evading extradition and frustrating the United Kingdom’s international obligations.
2. The Secretary of State had considered all the circumstances advanced by the claimant, including the previous Polish proceedings, their consequences, his family circumstances, the alleged unlawfulness of the conduct, and the asserted Convention and European Union rights. That consideration did not amount to abandonment, derogation from, or qualification of the blanket policy.
3. The claimant’s protections against exorbitant or abusive extradition proceedings were provided by the statutory extradition regime and the independent court process. Sections 79 and 80 of the Extradition Act 2003 addressed double jeopardy; section 71(3) addressed dual criminality; and section 87 protected Convention rights.
4. Following McKinnon v Government of the United States of America [2008] 1 WLR 1739, the district judge had jurisdiction to determine whether extradition proceedings constituted an abuse of process. R (Government of the United States of America) v Bow Street Magistrates Court (DC) [2007] 1 WLR 1157 confirmed that such issues should be addressed within the extradition hearing rather than outside the statutory scheme.
5. There was no independent anterior duty on the Secretary of State to decide, before any extradition hearing, whether the alleged conduct was criminal, whether dual criminality or double jeopardy applied, or whether proceedings would constitute an abuse. The analogy with Imperial Tobacco Limited v Attorney General [1981] AC 718 supported leaving such questions to the appropriate criminal or extradition process.
6. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. Bean J agreed with Burton J.

Collins J refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court, which refused permission.