After more than two decades on the run, Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 47-year-old American fugitive long listed among the FBI’s most wanted, has finally faced the prospect of extradition to the United States. San Diego, accused of orchestrating a series of bombings in California in 2003, was arrested last November in the tranquil countryside near Maenan, Conwy, North Wales. His capture, the result of a coordinated effort between Britain’s National Crime Agency, Counter Terrorism Policing, and North Wales Police, has reignited debate over the intersection of animal rights activism, terrorism charges, and the complexities of international law.
San Diego’s extradition hearing began at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on September 8, 2025, drawing attention from both sides of the Atlantic. The charges he faces in the United States are severe: causing damage and destruction by explosives, carrying an unregistered firearm, and using or carrying explosives. If extradited and convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars—potentially up to 90 years, especially if a terrorism enhancement is applied, as prosecutors have indicated may be possible.
The roots of San Diego’s legal troubles stretch back to the late summer and early fall of 2003. According to the BBC and Daily Mail, two bombs exploded about an hour apart at the Chiron biotechnology corporation in Emeryville, California, on August 28, 2003. A month later, on September 26, a nail bomb detonated outside the Shaklee nutritional products company in Pleasanton, California. Both companies had links to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British firm that had for years been the focus of animal rights protests, both lawful and criminal, due to its animal testing practices. Remarkably, no injuries were reported in either attack.
Authorities quickly suspected San Diego, who was known to have ties to animal rights groups. The FBI said he was motivated by his affiliation with the Animal Liberation Brigade, which claimed responsibility for both bombings. In a statement sent to a magazine later found in San Diego’s home, the group declared, “This is the endgame for the animal killers and if you choose to stand with them you will be dealt with accordingly.”
The investigation that followed was exhaustive. On October 8, 2003, police searched San Diego’s house, uncovering magazines and pamphlets suggesting a deep interest in animal rights activism. The next day, a search of his car revealed what the FBI described as a “bomb-making factory”—pipes, acetone, copper wire, and other materials consistent with the devices used in the bombings. San Diego’s fingerprints were found on some items, including the acetone, further linking him to the crimes. According to North Wales Live, prosecutors allege that he had also led police on a 65-mile chase before abandoning his car in California.
Despite the mounting evidence, San Diego vanished from California soon after the bombings. In 2004, a federal indictment was issued against him, and by 2009, he became the first domestic terrorist to be added to the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list, joining infamous figures such as Osama bin Laden. The FBI even offered a $250,000 (£198,000) reward for information leading to his capture—a sum that underscored the seriousness with which U.S. authorities viewed the case.
For over 21 years, San Diego managed to evade capture, reportedly living under the radar until his arrest in November 2024 at a remote cottage in the Conwy Valley. The property, nestled next to woodland and far from the bustle of city life, seemed an unlikely hiding place for a man with a £200,000 bounty on his head. When officers finally detained him, the fugitive’s decades-long flight from justice came to an abrupt end.
San Diego’s appearance at Westminster Magistrates’ Court attracted significant attention. Dressed in a white shirt, sage-colored tie, and glasses, he appeared calm, speaking only to confirm his personal details in a U.S. accent and even managing a smile and a wave to someone in the public gallery. The hearing, which began on September 8 and is expected to continue until at least September 11, will determine whether he will be sent back to the United States to face trial. No immediate ruling is expected.
The legal arguments presented at the hearing have been complex. Joel Smith KC, representing the U.S. authorities, outlined the charges and emphasized the potential for a lengthy sentence. According to BBC, Smith explained that new counts had been added to the indictment, including “using or carrying an explosive device to commit a felony.” If convicted, and if the prosecution successfully argues for a terrorism enhancement, San Diego could face a mandatory 90-year sentence—a prospect that has alarmed his defense team.
Mark Summers KC, San Diego’s lawyer, has argued vigorously against extradition. He raised concerns about the “political capture of the criminal justice system” in the United States and the risk of double jeopardy—a constitutional protection against being prosecuted twice for the same crime. Summers pointed out that the new indictment includes charges such as “the possession of a bomb for the purposes of bombing,” which he argued could result in being tried twice for the same conduct. “It is plainly inaccurate that they could be tried together,” Summers said.
David Patton, an expert on American criminal law, testified at the hearing that aspects of the indictment “quite plainly violate the Constitution. It violates the double jeopardy rules of the Constitution.” Patton also highlighted the U.S. practice of “stacking” charges, which can lead to defendants facing the risk of a life sentence and being coerced into a guilty plea without a trial. “You would have a hearing in advance of sentencing and a determination about whether or not the enhancement applied would be made by the judge based on a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt,” Patton explained. He noted that hearsay evidence could be used at such a hearing, a far looser standard than at trial.
The prosecution, however, maintains that the charges are legally tenable under U.S. law and that both bombings can be considered in the same case. For their part, U.S. authorities are eager to see San Diego returned to face justice, pointing to the severity of the crimes and the lengthy pursuit that followed.
As the hearing continues, the case has drawn renewed attention to the power and limits of international law, the rights of defendants facing extradition, and the enduring tensions between activism and criminality. For now, Daniel Andreas San Diego remains in legal limbo, his fate to be decided not in the wooded hills of Wales, but in the courts of London—and perhaps, soon, in the United States.
