+44 (0)20 7421 8000
36 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4JH
Menu
+44 (0)20 7421 8000
36 Bedford Row
London, WC1R 4JH
Barristers Mediators Arbitrators
Statue of JusticeRoyal Courts of JusticeBarristerBarristersDiscussionHandcuffsLecture

Extradition Law

Areas of Experience

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

36 Extradition

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 Cases

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

  • 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.
  • Jerzy Zmyslowski v Regional Court in Lublin [2016] EWHC 3271: Leading authority on the issue of modification of European Arrest Warrants.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kandola & Droma v Germany; Ijaz v Italy [2015] EWHC 619 – leading authority on the new bar to extradition under s.12A of the Act.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.