Peter Weinzierl v Government of the United States of America & Anor

Peter Weinzierl v Government of the United States of America & Anor

The judge was wrong to send the case to the Secretary of State because count 1 of the US indictment was not an extradition offence under English law and there was a real risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR due to cell-space concerns in US detention. The Secretary of State was correct to order extradition on remaining counts as specialty arrangements are adequate and other bars to extradition do not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Weinzierl; First Respondent: Government of the United States of America; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal, Pending Further Information on Article 3 ECHR Assurance
Outcome
Appeal under section 108 dismissed; appeal under section 103 allowed in part (count 1 only); final order pending further information on Article 3 ECHR assurance.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Abuse of Process, Dual Criminality, Specialty Protection, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Passage of Time, Fresh Evidence, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Money Laundering Abuse of Process Dual Criminality Specialty Protection Article 3 ECHR +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Weinzierl

Appellant

Government of the United States of America

First Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal, Pending Further Information on Article 3 ECHR Assurance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition request constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the offences specified are extradition offences under English law
  3. 3 Whether extradition is barred by passage of time

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong to send the case to the Secretary of State because count 1 of the US indictment was not an extradition offence under English law and there was a real risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR due to cell-space concerns in US detention. The Secretary of State was correct to order extradition on remaining counts as specialty arrangements are adequate and other bars to extradition do not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal under section 108 dismissed; appeal under section 103 allowed in part (count 1 only); final order pending further information on Article 3 ECHR assurance.

Orders

  • Application to adduce further evidence from James Troisi and TozziniFreire Advogados refused.
  • Application to adduce further evidence from Maureen Baird granted.