Extradition to the USA from the UK: Coelho and Competing Requests
By George Hepburne Scott, specialist extradition barrister and Head of Extradition at Church Court Chambers
Extradition to the USA from the UK can become particularly complex when another country also seeks the same person. The Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Diogo Santos Coelho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219 "Coelho" examines how the Home Secretary chooses between competing extradition requests and whether the person concerned must have an opportunity to make representations before one country receives priority.
In Coelho, handed down on 28 September 2026, the Court held that there is no legal obligation to receive or consider representations from the requested person before making a priority decision under section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003.
However, the decision must still rest on an accurate factual foundation. The Home Secretary’s appeal failed insofar as it challenged the finding that material factual errors justified quashing the decision.
Why were the USA and Portugal seeking extradition?
Mr Coelho, a Portuguese national, faced competing extradition proceedings arising from his alleged administration of RaidForums, a website through which stolen personal information could be bought and sold.
The United States requested his extradition in March 2022. Portugal subsequently issued an arrest warrant in February 2024. Although the two requests substantially overlapped, the Portuguese warrant also included allegations of money laundering and tax fraud.
In March 2024, the Minister acting on behalf of the Home Secretary decided to defer the Portuguese proceedings until the US request had been disposed of.
Mr Coelho challenged that decision by judicial review. His circumstances included significant mental health difficulties, an assessment of an extremely high risk of suicide if extradited to the USA, and a finding that he was a victim of modern slavery. He had consented to extradition to Portugal.
The High Court quashed the priority decision on grounds including procedural unfairness, material factual errors and irrationality. The Home Secretary appealed.
What does section 179 require?
Section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 addresses competing claims involving a Part 1 warrant and a Part 2 extradition request.
It permits the Home Secretary to defer proceedings, or extradition itself, on one claim while the other is dealt with.
Section 179(3) requires particular consideration of:
The relative seriousness of the offences.
Where each offence was committed or allegedly committed.
When the warrant was issued and the extradition request received.
Whether the person is accused of an offence or sought following conviction.
The statutory list is not exhaustive. The Court nevertheless held that the decision concerns the competing states’ interests and the implementation of the UK’s international obligations. The individual’s personal interests are addressed elsewhere within the extradition process.
Is there a right to make representations?
The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s conclusion that fairness required Mr Coelho to be given an opportunity to make representations before the priority decision.
Lady Justice Andrews, with whom Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Lord Justice Edis agreed, held that the statutory scheme displaced that right by necessary implication.
The Court emphasised Parliament’s allocation of responsibility between ministers and the courts. Human rights objections to extradition are considered through the extradition proceedings. Section 179 does not create an additional process for comparing which requesting country would offer the individual more favourable personal circumstances.
The distinction matters. Arguments about mental health, suicide risk and other potential human rights consequences remain capable of being raised in the appropriate extradition proceedings. The judgment establishes that the priority decision is not a further opportunity to require ministerial consideration of those matters.
The Court’s reasoning appears principally at paragraphs 68–84, with its conclusion on representations at paragraph 105.
Why did the factual challenge survive?
The Minister had been advised that the offending in the two requests was identical and that relative seriousness could not distinguish between them.
That presentation was inaccurate. The Portuguese warrant included additional allegations which potentially affected both the assessment of seriousness and the connections between the alleged offending and Portugal.
The Court recognised the extensive overlap between the requests. It also acknowledged that the additional allegations might ultimately add little to the overall seriousness of the conduct. But that assessment belonged to the decision-maker, who needed an accurate account of the competing cases.
At paragraph 96, the Court explained that correcting the error would not necessarily produce a different result. It was sufficient that a different conclusion remained open on an accurate presentation of the facts.
The Court did not decide that Portugal’s request was necessarily more serious or that Portugal must receive priority. At paragraph 97, it expressly left that evaluation to the person making the fresh decision.
Why was the appeal heard by the Court of Appeal?
The judgment also resolves a procedural issue concerning the appeal route.
Mr Coelho argued that the judicial review involved a “criminal cause or matter”, which would exclude the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction.
The Court rejected that argument. It characterised the priority decision as an administrative decision collateral to the extradition proceedings. It determined which request should take precedence, without itself deciding whether extradition to the USA could lawfully occur.
The Court of Appeal therefore had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the High Court’s judicial review decision: paragraphs 35–45.
What happened next in Mr Coelho’s case?
The judgment records a significant development after the appeal hearing: Mr Coelho was convicted in Portugal in his absence and sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment, ten months of which were suspended.
Portugal withdrew its original accusation warrant and replaced it with a conviction warrant. The USA maintained its request.
Those developments required a fresh section 179 decision. The Court of Appeal judgment did not finally determine whether Mr Coelho would be extradited to the USA. His application for permission to appeal against the US extradition decision had been stayed pending the judicial review proceedings.
Practical implications for extradition cases
For practitioners, the judgment underlines the importance of examining both the statutory factors and the accuracy of the information placed before the Home Secretary.
A careful comparison should identify differences in the alleged conduct, additional offences, territorial connections, procedural stages and the timing of each request. Changes from accusation to conviction may also require a fresh assessment.
A challenge based on material factual errors remains possible. However, the Court has rejected an entitlement to a separate ministerial hearing of the requested person’s representations under section 179.
The practical lesson is to identify precisely which decision is being challenged and which legal process can address the objection. Human rights arguments belong in the extradition proceedings; a challenge to the priority decision must engage with the lawful exercise of the section 179 power.
Facing extradition to the USA from the UK?
George Hepburne Scott is a specialist extradition barrister and Head of Extradition at Church Court Chambers in London. He advises and represents individuals facing extradition from the UK, including requests brought by the United States, and accepts instructions concerning bail, contested extradition hearings and High Court appeals.
His US extradition experience includes acting as sole counsel for Sundar Nagarajan in proceedings arising from a US sanctions and terrorist-financing investigation. In that case, he worked closely with lawyers in the United States and Belgium to coordinate aspects of the defence.
Enquiries are welcome from individuals facing US extradition requests, UK solicitors and US criminal defence attorneys seeking specialist counsel for the UK extradition proceedings.
This article discusses the judgment handed down on 28 September 2026 and provides general information rather than advice on an individual case.
Source: The National Archives, Find Case Law. Contains information licensed under the Open Justice – Licence v2.0.
