header-logo header-logo

19 February 2025
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Legal News , International justice , Criminal , Extradition
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court pushes back against US ‘overreach’

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
A deputy costs judge correctly exercised his discretion to allow late service rather than strike out the point of dispute, the Court of Appeal has held
Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and five others have lost their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, in Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB)
Public confidence in the justice system is being undermined by a lack of accessible, useable data, magistrates have warned
The Sentencing Council has launched draft guidelines for facilitation and endangering another person during a sea crossing to the UK
Government proposals to make independent written legal advice a prerequisite for workplace non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may prove unworkable, according to a senior employment lawyer
back-to-top-scroll