Bermuda extradition appeal: jurisdiction and alleged offences at sea
By George Hepburne Scott, specialist extradition barrister and Head of Extradition at Church Court Chambers
George Hepburne Scott is instructed to represent the requested person in a High Court extradition appeal brought by the Government of Bermuda. He is led by David Perry KC of 6KBW College Hill.
The appeal concerns alleged offending aboard a Bermuda-registered cruise ship outside Bermuda. It raises questions about territorial jurisdiction, the significance of a ship’s registration and the definition of an extradition offence under section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003.
The Chief Magistrate discharged the requested person. Bermuda has since been granted permission to appeal, and the substantive appeal remains to be determined.
Extradition for alleged offences aboard ships
The proceedings concern whether alleged conduct aboard a ship outside the requesting territory satisfies the statutory requirements for extradition from the United Kingdom.
Bermuda relies upon the vessel’s registration as the jurisdictional connection with the alleged conduct. This raises questions about the relationship between a state’s jurisdiction over ships registered there and the territorial requirements of UK extradition legislation.
The appeal also involves the relevant shipping legislation and the legal significance of the vessel’s location when the conduct allegedly occurred.
Section 137 and extra-territorial conduct
Section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003 defines an extradition offence for relevant cases under Part 2 of the Act.
The two provisions at issue distinguish between conduct occurring within the requesting territory and conduct occurring outside it:
Section 137(3) concerns conduct occurring within the requesting territory and applies a test of double criminality.
Section 137(4) concerns conduct occurring outside that territory. It requires, among other matters, that equivalent conduct in corresponding circumstances would constitute an extra-territorial offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court examined this distinction in El-Khouri v Government of the United States of America [2025] UKSC 3. It held that the allocation of conduct between these provisions depends on where the relevant acts were physically done, focusing on the substance of the alleged criminality.
The Bermuda appeal concerns the application of that framework to alleged conduct aboard a ship.
The Chief Magistrate’s decision
Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, the Chief Magistrate, discharged the requested person after concluding that neither section 137(3) nor section 137(4) had been satisfied.
In relation to section 137(3), he held that the ship’s registration did not make it part of Bermuda’s territory for the purposes of that provision. His reasoning addressed El-Khouri and the absence from the 2003 Act of provisions in earlier extradition legislation expressly treating conduct aboard vessels as conduct within the flag state’s territory.
His analysis of section 137(4) considered the relationship between the relevant English and Bermudian shipping legislation, together with the evidence concerning the vessel’s location. This included the distinction between the high seas and exclusive economic zones.
The discharge followed from those statutory conclusions. In alternative findings, the Chief Magistrate rejected the separate challenges concerning the sufficiency of the prima facie evidence, Article 8 and abuse of process.
Bermuda challenges his application of both section 137(3) and section 137(4).
Permission to appeal and representation by King’s Counsel
Mr Justice Chamberlain granted Bermuda permission to appeal, observing:
“Although the judgment of the Chief Magistrate is careful and cogently reasoned, the case raises an arguable point of law, which is of potentially wide significance.”
The permission decision allows the legal issues to proceed to a substantive appeal hearing. It does not determine whether Bermuda’s appeal should succeed.
The court also granted an application extending the requested person’s representation order to cover a King’s Counsel assisted by junior counsel. It recognised that the appeal raises substantial and complex legal issues and that its unusual factual and legal features make it exceptional compared with the generality of extradition cases.
George Hepburne Scott was instructed at the appeal stage to represent the requested person, led by David Perry KC.
Wider relevance for international extradition
The appeal brings together extradition law, maritime jurisdiction and the interpretation of legislation governing conduct outside national territory.
Although these proceedings concern Bermuda, section 137 also governs relevant extradition requests from other Part 2 territories, including the United States. The distinction between territorial and extra-territorial conduct can therefore matter to individuals facing extradition and to overseas lawyers working with UK extradition counsel.
The High Court’s eventual decision may provide further guidance on how those statutory requirements apply to alleged offences at sea.
Specialist representation in extradition appeals
George Hepburne Scott represents individuals in contested extradition proceedings and High Court appeals, including cases involving jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, human rights and requests from the United States and other overseas territories.
Enquiries are welcome from individuals, UK solicitors and overseas attorneys seeking specialist representation in UK extradition proceedings.
Read more about George’s extradition cases and High Court appeals, or contact George Hepburne Scott about an extradition matter.
This update concerns ongoing extradition proceedings and does not express a view on the underlying allegation.
