Joe Anthony Chappell & Ors., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the home Department

Extradition legislation should receive a generous and purposive construction so that extradition can operate effectively. That approach must be balanced against the liberty of the requested person and strict adherence to statutory safeguards. The court must not fill informational gaps by guesswork or create technical obstacles serving no useful purpose.

An extradition request may be made by a government even where supporting material was prepared by a police authority, provided the request adopts that material and contains, directly or by incorporation, the statutory statements. A formal diplomatic Note Verbale from an embassy may be treated as a request made by the ambassador on behalf of the requesting government. Modifications under section 194(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 must be specified with sufficient particularity in the certificate itself.

The three claimants sought judicial review of certificates issued under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to Japan’s request for their extradition. The request concerned alleged offences arising from a 2015 robbery in Tokyo.

There was no extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Japan. The extradition process instead relied on special arrangements under section 194 of the 2003 Act and a Memorandum of Cooperation identifying the Government of Japan as the requesting participant. The claimants argued that the request had been made only by the Japanese National Police Agency, that the Memorandum excluded reliance on section 70(7)(b), and that an embassy could not constitute a recognised diplomatic representative. They also raised delay.

1. Merits. All three grounds of judicial review failed and the claims were dismissed.
2. The proper approach to extradition legislation is generous and purposive, but subject to the rights of the requested person and the requirement that statutory procedures be adhered to. The court must not fill gaps in information by guesswork or impose technical obstacles that serve no useful purpose.
3. The Embassy Notes were requests by the Government of Japan. Their express wording requested extradition of the claimants. The accompanying Police Documents could be treated as supporting material adopted by the Government. Section 70 did not require the requesting government itself to investigate or independently author the supporting material.
4. The statutory statements required by section 70(4) were present. The offences were specified in the April 2018 Note and supporting documents, while the purpose of arrest and prosecution appeared in the documents and the Memorandum of Cooperation. A request may contain the necessary statements by incorporation or attachment.
5. The routes in section 70(7)(a) and (b) were not necessarily mutually exclusive. A request by the Government of Japan communicated through its diplomatic representative could be valid under either route. The ambassador acts as the mouthpiece of the sending state, so a formal Note Verbale from the embassy could be treated as emanating from an identifiable diplomatic representative.
6. The Memorandum did not modify the 2003 Act. Nevertheless, section 194(4)(b) requires any modification to be specified, with sufficient particularity, in the section 194 certificate itself. A general reference to the Memorandum would not suffice, because the certificate is a standalone document and procedural safeguards should not be modified ambiguously.
7. Although the delay was significant, there were objectively good reasons for it, including the late disclosure of the Memorandum and Embassy Notes. If the claims had succeeded, extensions of time would have been granted. As the claims failed on the merits, no extension was granted.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Divisional Court. The applications for permission and the substantive claims were dealt with at a rolled-up hearing. The claims were dismissed on the merits.