Dooley, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor

Dooley, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor

The judge's post-hearing comparative exercise using medical records not disclosed to parties or experts, and reliance on resulting adverse findings without opportunity for response, constituted procedural unfairness undermining the fairness of the proceedings; the judgment must be quashed and reheard by a different judge.

Parties
Claimant: Kevan Dooley; Defendant: Westminster Magistrates Court; Interested Party: Government of New Zealand; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Interested Party: National Crime Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds; challenged decisions quashed; matter remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Extradition Proceedings, Judicial Review, Mental Health in Extradition, Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Administrative Law Extradition Procedural Fairness Extradition Proceedings Judicial Review Mental Health in Extradition Article 8 ECHR

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevan Dooley

Claimant

Westminster Magistrates Court

Defendant

Government of New Zealand

Interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

National Crime Agency

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition proceedings were vitiated by procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether post-hearing evidence consideration without party input invalidates the judgment
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's mental and physical health precludes extradition

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's post-hearing comparative exercise using medical records not disclosed to parties or experts, and reliance on resulting adverse findings without opportunity for response, constituted procedural unfairness undermining the fairness of the proceedings; the judgment must be quashed and reheard by a different judge.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds; challenged decisions quashed; matter remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • Quash the decision of District Judge Leong dated 9 September 2024 sending the Claimant’s case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • Declare that the Secretary of State's decision dated 30 October 2024 ordering extradition under section 93 of the Extradition Act 2003 is of no legal effect.