Does extradition always take precedence over deportation?

This is the issue for the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Lopes) v. SSHD and another, following permission by LJ Dingemans granted on 22 December 2020. Our client, a foreign national who is serving a life sentence, was sought by the Portuguese authorities for an unrelated historic offence under the Extradition Act 1989. Unlike the 2003 Act, the old statute requires that the sentence be served in full before extradition could be enforced. The claimant has no realistic prospect of being recommended for release by the Parole Board so he cannot not be extradited. He can’t be deported because of the general principle that extradition takes precedence over deportation or removed under the Tariff Expired Removal Scheme (TERS).

The claimant challenged his detention by judicial review and writ of habeas corpus against both the SSHD and SSJ. He contended that the refusal to remove him was irrational and failure to proceed with removal under TERS was unlawful. Our client further contended that his detention had become arbitrary and violated his Article 5 ECHR rights. The court will now consider whether his detention is really unlawful and whether a writ of habeas corpus is a permissible remedy. This case will be listed for hearing in the following months. The claimant is represented by Ms Jennifer Lanigan of 4 King’s Bench Walk Chambers.