Weekly Round-up: Labour Party conference, ‘one in, one out’ and competing extradition requests
3 October 2026
The UK Human Rights Blog is moving to Substack.
From 19th October, all new articles will be published exclusively on our Substack, and no new content will appear on our current website.
To stay up to date with our latest articles and insights, please subscribe here: https://substack.com/@ukhumanrightsblog
In the news
At the Labour Party conference, ministers affirmed their support for the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Chris Bryant, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, promised to “stand by” the ECHR, contrasting the Labour Party’s position with that of Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch, whom he warned would “bin” the ECHR if elected. Meanwhile, justice minister Jake Richards told Labour members that the party was “absolutely committed” to the ECHR, as reported by the Law Society Gazette. He went on to describe the ECHR as a “living instrument”, noting that the Government should continue to play a role in reforming the treaty.
Speaking at the Labour party conference on Monday, Shabana Mahmood, Home Secretary, announced that the UK Resettlement Route would reopen, in partnership with the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Refugee Assistance Project. The Home Secretary said that around one in four referrals will be for Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees.
On Thursday, the Home Office confirmed the closure of the ‘one in, one out’ pilot scheme with France. Under the ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangeround Journeys’, ratified in August 2025, any asylum seeker who had crossed the Channel unlawfully could be returned back to France. There was also a provision for “reciprocal admittance”, whereby an asylum seeker in France who had a genuine family link to someone in the UK and had not attempted to enter the UK unlawfully, would be allowed to enter the UK.
In other news
- On Monday, UN human rights experts warned that the US Government’s immigration policy of deporting thousands of migrant people is “triggering a cascade of human rights violations”. The statement came shortly before the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations.
- On Thursday, the Council of the European Union approved new rules to return migrant people who do not have the legal right to remain in the bloc. Under the new regulations, member states will be able to send people who have received a return decision to third-country “return hubs”.
- More than half of Britons (54%) believe the Government only protects speech that it agrees with, according to polling commissioned by the human rights organisation Liberty. The research also suggests that recent policies have had a detrimental impact on perceptions of freedom of speech. More than four in 10 respondents believe that people being arrested for holding signs in support of Palestine Action has had a negative effect on freedom of speech in the UK, while a third believe that giving police greater powers to restrict protests is bad for free speech.
In the courts
Coelho, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 1219
On Monday, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that procedural fairness does not require that a person who is the subject of competing requests for extradition should have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the SSHD”) before a priority decision is taken. While Andrews LJ acknowledged that fairness usually dictates that a person should be afforded the opportunity to make representations before a decision that will affect them is taken by a public body, she held that s. 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 displaced that right by necessary implication [68].
The case concerned Diogo Santos Coelho, a 26-year-old Portuguese national, who was the subject of competing extradition requests from the USA and Portugal relating to his alleged control and administration of RaidForums, a website which distributed hacked personal data to facilitate fraudulent activity [2-3].
The central issue before the Court was whether Mr Coelho was entitled to raise the potential human rights implications of extradition to the USA before the SSHD took the priority decision. Mr Coelho had been assessed as being at ‘extremely high risk’ of suicide should he be extradited to the USA [8]. The Court also heard that he would not have access to the same support in the USA as a victim of modern slavery as there is in Portugal, because the USA is not a party to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings [73].
Mr Coelho’s conviction in Portugal shortly after the appeal hearing constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring the SSHD to take a fresh decision. Nevertheless, Andrews LJ handed down judgment, noting that the appeal “raises important issues of principle which are likely to arise in other cases” [12].
The Court found that the SSHD is under no legal obligation to receive or to take into account representations from the subject of the extradition requests, before making a priority decision under s. 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 [105].
Instead, the SSHD is concerned to ensure that the decision best reflects the UK’s obligations under the two rival Treaties and the policy of seeking to ensure that requested persons face justice with minimum delay [83].
AndrewsLJ noted that “the interests of the individual are conspicuous by their absence” in s. 179 of the Extradition Act 2003, and are “catered for elsewhere within the extradition process” [83].
On the UKHRB, Dr Lewis Graham discusses the latest Supreme Court ruling on the compatibility of child sentencing with the European Convention on human rights
On Law Pod UK, Rosalind English discusses the application of AI to medical devices with Robert Kellar KC and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row: AI in healthcare: who will be liable when things go wrong?
