Areas of Experience
- Judicial Review
- Habeas Corpus
- Import Extradition
- International Criminal Law
36 Extradition is 36 Bedford Row’s highly regarded extradition team. Members of the team act on behalf of “requested persons” and “issuing” judicial authorities in Part 1 and Part 2 cases.
Members have acted in the lead cases before the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, and regularly advise on related issues of Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus claims.
As a truly specialist team, members devote the majority of their practice to extradition work. All members of the team have undertaken a twelve-month secondment with the Extradition Unit of the Crown Prosecution Service.
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.
Recent extradition cases in which members of 36 Extradition have been instructed, include:
Connor, Herbert and Shammas v Germany  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  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  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  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  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  EWHC 3271: Leading authority on the issue of modification of European Arrest Warrants.
- Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority  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  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  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  EWHC 619 – leading authority on the new bar to extradition under s.12A of the Act.
- Elashmawy v Italy  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  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  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  EWHC 648 (Admin) – case to be before the Supreme Court in March 2016 on s.2(6)(c) requirement.
Related Areas of Practice