Section 20 extradition retrial rules: what changes on 29 September 2026?
The law on extradition following a conviction in a person’s absence is changing. From 29 September 2026, section 246 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will amend section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. It makes corresponding changes to section 85, which applies to Part 2 extradition requests.
The changes concern when a UK extradition judge can proceed with a case despite questions about a retrial or equivalent review in the requesting state. They do not apply to every case already in progress: the date and legal basis of the requested person’s arrest matter.
Position checked: 23 September 2026.
What is section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003?
Section 20 concerns a Part 1 extradition request where the person has already been convicted of the offence. Where the person was absent from the relevant trial, the court may need to consider why they were absent and whether they would be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial after extradition.
These questions require close attention to the evidence. What did the person know about the hearing? Did they deliberately stay away? Were they represented? What remedy does the law of the requesting state actually provide?
The Supreme Court examined deliberate absence and the right to be present at trial in Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy. The effect of that decision must now be considered alongside the new statutory wording in cases to which the amendment applies.
What will change on 29 September 2026?
The amended section 20 sets out several circumstances in which the judge can proceed to the next stage of the extradition hearing. They include where the person:
would be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial;
would have that entitlement unless a court in the requesting territory decided that they deliberately absented themselves from the trial;
had such an entitlement but expressly waived it; or
was informed of such an entitlement but did not exercise it within the permitted period.
The amendment also says that, for the purposes of this part of section 20, a person convicted at a trial at which they were legally represented, but not present in person, is treated as having been convicted in their presence. The corresponding changes to section 85 address Part 2 extradition requests.
A conditional right to a retrial therefore requires particular care. Under the amended provision, the fact that a court in the requesting state must first decide whether the person deliberately absented themselves does not, by itself, prevent the UK judge from moving to the next stage. It remains necessary to examine the actual foreign procedure and the facts of the individual case.
Do the changes apply to existing cases?
Not necessarily. The commencement regulations bring section 246 into force on 29 September 2026, but contain saving provisions for certain people arrested before that date.
The section 20 amendments do not apply where the extradition hearing arises from an arrest under section 3 or 5 of the Extradition Act 2003 that took place before 29 September 2026. For section 85, the equivalent saving applies to an arrest under section 71, 73 or 74A before that date.
Consequently, the date of a hearing alone does not establish which version of the law applies. The arrest record should be checked.
What should be examined in a Section 20 extradition retrial/ trial-in-absence case?
The important questions will depend on the request, but may include:
Which proceeding resulted in the relevant decision? A case may involve more than one hearing, appeal or sentencing decision.
What evidence shows that the person knew about the trial? Notice, service and the circumstances of non-attendance may be disputed.
Was the person legally represented at that trial? The amended wording makes this an especially important factual and legal question.
What retrial or review is available? The answer may depend on a decision by a foreign court, an express waiver or a deadline that has passed.
Which version of sections 20 or 85 applies? Check the date and statutory basis of arrest against the saving provisions (i.e. is it a part 1 or part 2 case).
A statement in an extradition warrant may not settle every one of those issues. Foreign court documents and further information may be needed.
An example from a recent extradition appeal
In June 2026, I acted in a High Court appeal concerning a Polish extradition request. A section 20 issue arose because the appellant had not attended a hearing at which an aggregate sentence was imposed. Following enquiries, the Polish court confirmed that no right to a retrial was available. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged.
That decision preceded the commencement of the 2026 amendments. It should not be assumed to predict the result of a later case governed by the amended wording. It does show why the particular hearing, any representation and the precise retrial position deserve careful investigation.
Advice about extradition after a trial in absence
If you or someone you represent faces extradition following proceedings they did not attend, obtain advice promptly. The warrant, arrest date, history of the foreign proceedings and any available retrial remedy should be assessed together. A deadline for seeking a remedy abroad may also matter.
I am George Hepburne-Scott, an extradition barrister. You can read more about my extradition practice or contact me about representation.
This article provides general information as at 23 September 2026. It is not advice on an individual case.
