High Court Rules No Abuse of Process in Extradition Case: Emphasizes Importance of Good Faith and Doctrine of Specialty

Citation: [2024] EWHC 245 (KB)
Judgment on


In the case of Ryan Stage v The Government of The Commonwealth of Australia [2024] EWHC 245 (KB), the English High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court meticulously addressed several pivotal aspects of extradition law. This case serves as a keen exemplar of how extradition proceedings intertwine with principles of abuse of process, good faith in prosecutorial conduct, and the doctrine of specialty under international law.

Key Facts

Ryan Stage, a British citizen, was apprehended following an extradition request by the Australian government, accused of conspiring to import a commercial quantity of cocaine. The initial charges laid in Australia were later condensed into a single negotiated charge to which Stage pleaded guilty. However, due to a clerical error, Stage was erroneously released from custody and managed to return to the UK. Australia proceeded to request extradition on a new set of charges, which included an offense alleging a higher quantity of imported cocaine than the negotiated charge to which Stage had admitted.

Stage’s legal team appealed to the English High Court of Justice, arguing that the extradition itself constituted an abuse of process, as it went against the plea agreement in Australia and exposed him to potentially harsher penalties.

Several legal principles were scrutinized in this case:

Abuse of Process in Extradition Proceedings

The defense claimed that the Australian government’s actions—reneging on a plea deal and seeking extradition on more severe charges—constituted an abuse of process in extradition. The Court evaluated this claim under the two-step process outlined in R (Bermingham and others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] EWHC 200 (Admin); [2007] QB 727, and the four-step Tollman test from R (Government of the United States of America) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2006] EWHC 2256 (Admin); [2007 1 WLR 1157. The test required the judge to consider if the conduct, if established, amounted to abuse and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe such conduct occurred.

Doctrine of Specialty

The doctrine of specialty, as embodied in section 42 of the Extradition Act 1988, limits the offenses for which an extradited person can be tried to those described in the extradition request, preventing additional or different charges from being pursued that were not initially specified.

Good Faith in Prosecutorial Conduct

The Court also considered whether the prosecutor had acted in good faith, as the extradition jurisdiction can only be abused by the prosecuting authority, as proposed in Symeou v Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeals, Patras, Greece [2009] EWHC 897 (Admin); [2009] 1 WLR 2384.


The Court ruled that there was no evidence to support Stage’s claim of an abuse of the extradition process. It was established that the Australian government had acted in good faith by providing extensive information and justifications for seeking extradition on the new charges. Even assuming a higher quantity of drugs was at play in the extradition charges, there was no arguable case of bad faith or abuse of extradition processes.

The Court reiterated that issues related to abuse of process, as per the local legal traditions and standards, were a matter for the Australian Courts to decide upon once the individual was extradited. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the doctrine of specialty ensures an extradited individual cannot face a greater penalty than is warranted by the charges outlined in the extradition request.


The High Court’s judgment in Ryan Stage v The Government of The Commonwealth of Australia serves as a clarion call for the clear delineation between the act of extradition and the subsequent legal processes within the requesting state. It reiterates the necessity for good faith in prosecutorial conduct and the limited scope of the extradition Court in ruling on matters of foreign law and potential abuse of process within such a jurisdiction. The case is a reminder that, while courts must exercise vigilance against abuse of extradition procedures, there is a fundamental trust inherent in international law that must prevail unless there is tangible evidence to the contrary.

Related Summaries