+44 (0)20 7421 8000
36 Bedford Row
London, WC1R 4JH
Read Our COVID-19 Update Here

Areas of Experience

  • Extradition
  • Judicial Review
  • Habeas Corpus
  • Import Extradition
  • International Criminal Law

36 Extradition

36 Extradition is a highly regarded specialist team within Chambers.  Members of the team have acted in many of the leading cases in extradition, appearing for requested persons and requesting states in cases before the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The team includes a number of the leading junior practitioners in extradition who are ranked as leaders in the field by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. Members of 36 Extradition have contributed to the leading practitioners’ text ‘Criminal Judicial Review’ (Hart Publishing), and are able to advise on pubic law challenges to extradition decisions, as well as on Habeas Corpus claims.

The team has particular experience in international criminal law; members are often instructed in requests involving war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The team are also highly experienced in representing victims of human trafficking and forced labour; and also representing judicial authorities and requesting states seeking extradition in cross-border trafficking offences.

Recent Cases

Recent extradition cases in which members of 36 Extradition have been instructed, include:

  • Connor, Herbert and Shammas v Germany [2018] EWHC 829 (Admin) - Saoirse represented Mr Shammas in an extradition appeal where the Appellants were charged in Germany with a multi-million Euro carousel fraud. It was argued that it was an abuse of process to modify the number of offences for which they were sought without particularising them in the European Arrest Warrant.

  • L. Georgiev, I. Dimitrov and B. Georgiev v Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 359 (Admin). - Saoirse represented Mr Dimitrov in the key extradition appeal where it was argued that the Bulgarian authorities could not be trusted to comply with assurances regarding prison conditions where there was evidence of multiple previous breaches.

  • Anthony King v France [2015] EWHC: Leading authority on the level of particulars required pursuant to section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

  • District Court in Litomerice, Czech Republic v Miroslav Kolman [2017] EWHC 302: Decision affirming that judicial authorities must provide evidence to establish dual criminality and cannot require district judges to take 'judicial notice' of certain facts.
  • Din v German Public Prosecutors Office in Augsburg [2017] EWHC 475 (Admin) - Court identified the equivalent decisions to "charge" and "try" in German law for the purposes of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • Jerzy Zmyslowski v Regional Court in Lublin [2016] EWHC 3271: Leading authority on the issue of modification of European Arrest Warrants.
  • Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin) - 2 members of the extradition team were involved in this leading case which reconsidered the findings made in Kandola & Droma v Germany; Ijaz v Italy [2015] EWHC 619 and completely re-defined the section 12A landscape.
  • Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag, Poland and Sas v Circuit Court and District Court in Jelenia Gora, Poland [2016] UKSC 36 - Supreme Court case regarding the validity of European Arrest Warrants when they do not contain domestic warrants for the purposes of s.2(4)(b).
  • Kandola & Droma v Germany; Ijaz v Italy [2015] EWHC 619 – leading authority on the new bar to extradition under s.12A of the Act.
  • Elashmawy v Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin) - defining case on Article 3 ECHR prison conditions arguments in Italy following the ECtHR judgment of Italy v Torregiani.
  • Atraskevic v Poland [2015] EWHC 131 (Admin) - definitive judgment from Divisional Court on the new forum bar pursuant to s. 19B of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • R (on the application of Mechlinksi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2015] EWHC 2043 – only successful judicial review of a District Judge’s decision to fail to discharge the European Arrest Warrant where a requested person is not removed within the require period.
  • R (on the application of Sas) v Poland [2014] EWHC 648 (Admin) – case to be before the Supreme Court in March 2016 on s.2(6)(c) requirement.

Related Areas of Practice