Japan Extradition Case: Chappell and the First UK Extradition Request from Japan

George Hepburne-Scott represents Joe Anthony Chappell in the first extradition request made by the Government of Japan to the United Kingdom. The case has generated a series of complex proceedings before Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the High Court and remains ongoing.

Japan seeks Chappell’s extradition in connection with an alleged robbery at a jewellery store in Tokyo in November 2015. The request is unprecedented because the United Kingdom and Japan do not have a permanent extradition treaty; special extradition arrangements were made for the request under the Extradition Act 2003.

The litigation has involved a judicial review of the certification of the request, questions concerning the existence of a prima facie case, extensive human rights challenges, diplomatic assurances from Japan, Chappell’s discharge at first instance, an appeal by Japan, remittal to Westminster Magistrates’ Court and a further ongoing High Court appeal.

First extradition request from Japan to the UK

The case concerns the first extradition request made by the Government of Japan to the United Kingdom. Unlike many of the countries with which the UK has extradition relations, there is no permanent bilateral extradition treaty between the UK and Japan.

Special extradition arrangements were therefore made under section 194 of the Extradition Act 2003. The arrangements were created specifically to enable the Japanese request to be considered under UK extradition law.

Judicial review of the Japanese extradition request

Before the substantive extradition proceedings were determined, Chappell and the other requested persons brought judicial review proceedings challenging the certification of Japan’s extradition request.

The challenge concerned the Secretary of State’s certification of the request under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, including arguments about whether the request had been properly made on behalf of the Government of Japan.

The judicial review was heard by the Divisional Court and was ultimately dismissed. The case is reported as Chappell & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3281 (Admin).

Mark Summers KC and George Hepburne-Scott represented Joe Chappell in those proceedings, instructed by Foxes Solicitors.

Proceedings before the Chief Magistrate

The substantive extradition proceedings were heard at Westminster Magistrates’ Court before the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring.

A central issue was whether Japan had established a prima facie case against Chappell as required by section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Chief Magistrate initially concluded that a prima facie case had not been established.

The court also considered extensive human rights arguments concerning the Japanese criminal justice system, including detention and interrogation practices, access to lawyers, prison conditions, compulsory prison work and fair trial protections.

Following further hearings and diplomatic assurances provided by Japan, the Chief Magistrate concluded on 11 August 2023 that the assurances were insufficient to remove the human rights concerns identified by the court. Chappell was discharged under section 87(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Government of Japan’s High Court appeal

The Government of Japan appealed against Chappell’s discharge to the High Court. The appeal concerned both the Chief Magistrate’s finding that Japan had failed to establish a prima facie case and the human rights grounds upon which extradition had been refused.

In Government of Japan v Chappell & Wright [2025] EWHC 166 (Admin), the High Court allowed Japan’s appeal. It concluded that there was a prima facie case against Chappell and overturned the Chief Magistrate’s conclusions on the relevant human rights issues and diplomatic assurances.

The High Court therefore quashed the order discharging Chappell and remitted the extradition proceedings to Westminster Magistrates’ Court for further consideration.

Mark Summers KC and George Hepburne-Scott represented Joe Chappell in the High Court appeal.

Article 3 ECHR and time spent in UK custody

Following the remittal, a further significant Article 3 ECHR issue arose concerning the substantial period Chappell has spent in custody in the United Kingdom while awaiting extradition.

The issue is whether the time Chappell has spent in UK extradition custody will be credited against any custodial sentence ultimately imposed in Japan if he is convicted. Japan has not provided a guarantee that the full period will be deducted.

The defence argues that, without such credit, Chappell could effectively be required to serve the same period of custody twice. It is argued that, in the circumstances of the case and given the substantial period already spent in custody, this could result in punishment that is grossly disproportionate and contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

The issue has assumed particular importance because of the length of time Chappell has already spent in custody during these extradition proceedings.

Remittal to Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Following the High Court’s decision, the case returned to Westminster Magistrates’ Court before Senior District Judge Goldspring.

The defence sought to raise the new Article 3 issue concerning whether Chappell would receive credit in Japan for the substantial period he had already spent in custody in the United Kingdom.

The Chief Magistrate concluded that the issue had not been raised or argued in any meaningful way at the original extradition hearing and therefore could not be determined as a new issue on the remittal. Importantly, however, he also held that if he was wrong about that jurisdictional question, the evidence concerning credit for time served was genuinely new, had not been available at the original hearing and was capable of affecting the outcome of the case.

The Chief Magistrate nevertheless went on to reject the Article 3 argument on its merits and sent the case to the Secretary of State.

Ongoing High Court appeal

The case is now the subject of a further appeal to the High Court.

The ongoing appeal concerns the Article 3 ECHR issue arising from the absence of a guarantee that the substantial period Chappell has spent in custody in the United Kingdom will be credited against any sentence imposed in Japan.

The appeal raises an important issue concerning the human rights consequences of extradition where a requested person has already spent a substantial period in custody awaiting extradition but the requesting state does not guarantee that this period will count towards any eventual sentence.

The proceedings remain ongoing and no final determination of this appeal has yet been made.

Why the Japan extradition case is significant

The Chappell case is one of the most unusual and significant extradition cases to have come before the UK courts in recent years. It arises from the first extradition request made by the Government of Japan to the United Kingdom and has required special extradition arrangements in the absence of a permanent bilateral extradition treaty.

The proceedings have involved judicial review, the requirement for a prima facie case, diplomatic assurances and detailed consideration of the Japanese criminal justice system under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case has also generated important litigation concerning detention and interrogation in Japan, access to legal representation, prison conditions, compulsory prison work and the treatment of time already spent in custody pending extradition.

With a further High Court appeal ongoing, the proceedings continue to raise significant questions about the application of UK extradition law and human rights protections to extradition requests from Japan.

Representation in the Japan extradition case

George Hepburne-Scott represents Joe Anthony Chappell in the extradition proceedings brought by the Government of Japan.

He has appeared in the proceedings alongside Mark Summers KC of Matrix Chambers, including in the judicial review proceedings and the Government of Japan’s High Court appeal.

The case has involved proceedings before Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the High Court, addressing some of the most complex evidential and human rights issues arising in modern UK extradition law.