Government of Japan (Respondent) v Wright (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal refused

Case summary
Linked cases
Appeal
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0037

Parties

Appellant(s)

Kaine Wright

Respondent(s)

Government of Japan

Joseph Chappell

Issue

Whether Japan’s requirement for a convicted prisoner to work 40 hours a week, that is 8 hours a day, five days a week excluding weekends and public holidays, is work done in the ordinary course of detention and so not forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

Facts

The appellants are wanted by the respondent, the Government of Japan, in connection with a £650,000 diamond robbery alleged to have been committed by them in Tokyo in November 2015. On 20 March 2018, the Government of Japan issued extradition requests for the appellants. The United Kingdom does not have a permanent extradition treaty with Japan and this is the first ever extradition request from them. However, the two countries made special arrangements, set out in a memorandum of co-operation signed on 6 July 2021, for the purposes of the surrender to Japan of the appellants. Section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003 provides that if a judge considers that a person’s extradition would be incompatible with their human rights under the ECHR that person must be discharged (i.e. not extradited). Article 4 of the ECHR provides that “no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour” but contains an exception for “any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention”. Japan has a system of compulsory labour in its prisons which requires a convicted prisoner to work 40 hours a week, that is 8 hours a day, five days a week excluding weekends and public holidays. In 2022-23, the Senior District Judge (“SDJ”) considered the extradition request for the first appellant, Mr Chappell. On 27 February 2023, the SDJ found that if Mr Chappell was extradited to Japan and convicted then its compulsory labour system would be incompatible with his article 4 rights. In particular, the SDJ was concerned that, amongst other things, Mr Chappell would be marched to work and paid $1 a day. The SDJ therefore requested assurances from Japan that Mr Chappell would not be subjected to this if he was extradited. Japan provided a document with assurances dated 22 May 2023. On 11 August 2023, the SDJ held that the assurances given by Japan were inadequate and discharged Mr Chappell. In 2024, the SDJ considered the extradition request for the second appellant, Mr Wright. The SDJ had received further assurances from the Government of Japan about its compulsory labour system dated 13 March 2024. On 18 July 2024, the SDJ held that the March 2024 assurances were still inadequate and discharged Mr Wright. The Government of Japan appealed to the Divisional Court which overturned the SDJ’s decision, holding that there was no evidence of anything objectionable about Japan’s system of compulsory labour and that it would not breach the appellants’ article 4 rights. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.