I think it's more likely that the British judge just disagrees with your assessment of the case. Unless you have any actual evidence of something more sinister, we'll just have to leave it there.
Of course we don't have evidence of anything more sinister, but the reporting demonstrates a repeated and extreme bias coupled with treatment not normally seen in UK extradition cases, to a level that it's deeply irrational to assume there isn't pressure involved.
The pre-written decisions alone, read out unmodified after listening to testimony is irregular enough that it is illogical to assume this judge is doing her job, as there is no evidence to suggest she is..
What treatment is not normally seen in UK extradition cases? Were you a keen observer of UK extradition hearings prior to this one?
It's common for judges to read out their decisions. (Do you expect them to memorize their lines like actors?)
I don't know how you think you can know that the decisions are "unmodified". It's quite likely that the judge has prepared multiple options in advance and chosen one based on what happened at the hearing.
