Badie v Government of Kuwait: Divisional Court upholds extradition despite Article 3 challenges

The Divisional Court has dismissed appeals against the extradition of Abel Mohamed Badie to Kuwait, upholding both the District Judge's decision to send the case to the Secretary of State and the subsequent extradition order. The judgement, handed down on 29 October 2025, addresses significant questions about assurances regarding prison conditions, credibility assessments, and specialty protections in extradition proceedings.

Mr Badie, an Iraqi national who fled to the UK in 2019 and was subsequently granted asylum, faces extradition to serve a five-year sentence for fraud and money laundering. Between 2014 and 2016, he was involved in marketing non-existent housing units in Turkey and the UAE through T-Mas Real Estate Company, defrauding victims of approximately £243 million. He left Kuwait in January 2018 before his trial concluded, crossing into Saudi Arabia in breach of bail conditions.

Following conviction in absentia and dismissal of his appeal to the Court of Cassation in July 2020, Kuwait made its first extradition request in May 2021. A second request relating to his absconding was subsequently discharged due to a procedural error in the extradition order's wording.

Article 3 challenges rejected

The appellant mounted substantial challenges under Article 3 ECHR, arguing that prison conditions in Kuwait and the risk of torture rendered extradition unlawful. Expert evidence confirmed severe overcrowding in parts of Kuwait's prison complex, but also established that Block 4 of the Central Prison operated well below capacity with conditions exceeding Article 3 standards.

Kuwait provided specific assurances that Mr Badie would be held in Cell 16 of Block 4 for his entire sentence, with appropriate healthcare and facilities. The Divisional Court upheld the District Judge's finding that these assurances were sufficient, noting their specificity and the fact that compliance could be readily monitored through telephone access and legal representatives.

The Court emphasised the presumption that assurances from friendly foreign governments governed by the rule of law should be taken at face value absent cogent contrary evidence. The practical application of these assurances, rather than abstract monitoring mechanisms, formed the central inquiry.

Credibility findings sustained

Mr Badie's allegations of torture during pre-trial detention were comprehensively rejected. The District Judge made multiple adverse credibility findings, including that Mr Badie had fabricated claims about a broken wrist and staged a suicide attempt to avoid cross-examination. The Divisional Court held these findings were properly open to the judge and demonstrated the restrictive approach appellate courts must take when reviewing factual determinations.

Whilst the District Judge incorrectly found that Mr Badie had lied about making an asylum claim regarding events in Kuwait (he had indeed made such a claim, though after the relevant psychological report), this error was not material to the overall credibility assessment. The numerous independent adverse findings meant the judge's ultimate conclusion remained sound.

Abuse of process and specialty

The Court rejected arguments that Kuwait's initial failure to issue a second extradition request for the absconding offence constituted an abuse of process or demonstrated unreliable specialty protections. The District Judge's finding that this arose from a misunderstanding rather than bad faith was upheld, and subsequent conduct demonstrated Kuwait's commitment to treaty obligations.

The appeals demonstrate the high threshold for challenging extradition decisions on factual grounds and the weight accorded to diplomatic assurances in appropriate circumstances.