header-logo header-logo

Supreme Court pushes back against US ‘overreach’

19 February 2025
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Legal News , International justice , Criminal , Extradition
printer mail-detail
A man suspected of insider trading has escaped extradition due to the double criminality rule, in a landmark case that ‘effectively overturns’ a 20-year-old House of Lords precedent.

Ruling in El-Khouri v Government of the United States of America [2025] UKSC 3 last week, the Supreme Court quashed the order to extradite El-Khouri to the US, where he is charged with 17 offences. The appeal concerned the definition of an ‘extradition offence’ and the operation of the double criminality rule in s 137 of the Extradition Act 2003.

George Hepburne Scott, Church Court Chambers, said: ‘Crimes alleged abroad must also be crimes in the UK—the so-called “transposition” or “double criminality” test.

‘Therefore, if the relevant conduct occurs outside the requesting state, in order to be an extradition offence it must be an extra-territorial offence in the UK. The fundamental issue was that this offence is not an extra-territorial offence in the UK.

‘Previously, the law permitted such extra-territorial offending to constitute an extradition offence by use of the English common law purposive approach which included consideration of where the conduct was felt. The Supreme Court held that this was the wrong approach and did not reflect the clear statutory language of the Extradition Act 2003 in this regard.’

Richard Cannon, solicitor for El-Khouri, said the judgment ‘represents an important check on overreach by the US authorities in the way the US/UK extradition treaty operates.

‘From the outset, it has been clear that London was at the centre of the alleged misconduct in this case and the links to the US were tenuous. However, the US authorities relied upon the intended consequences of the alleged unlawful conduct to try to establish in law that it occurred inside their territory, relying upon a 20-year-old House of Lords precedent [Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67].

‘The Supreme Court effectively overturned this precedent and found that in similar cases in the future the court would not be concerned with where the consequences of conduct were felt, but with where the conduct physically took place. If the conduct took place abroad, the UK court will only order extradition if it is satisfied that in corresponding circumstances equivalent conduct could justify extradition to or prosecution in the UK.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll