Saoirse has a dynamic court and advisory practice specialising in extradition and public law. She is the founding member and head of 36 Bedford Row’s Extradition Team which she has built from zero since 2013. Saoirse is listed as Band 2 in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners (having jumped two categories in one year for the latter). Comments include: “She always goes the extra mile and makes valuable contributions to the team” and “An impressive junior... Extremely bright and very focused, she takes an approach that is forensic, detailed and effective. She’s thorough and methodical in raising her arguments, and reliable in relation to time management”.
Saoirse is instructed alone and is led in complex and novel points of law before the Supreme Court and the Divisional Court. Last year, Saoirse appeared in the Supreme Court in an extradition appeal regarding the validity of European Arrest Warrants: Goluchowksi v District Court in Elblag, Poland and Sas v Circuit Court and District Court in Jelenia Gora, Poland  UKSC 36. Saoirse is instructed in a further case (Alexander v France & Di Benedetto v Italy  EWHC 1392 (Admin)) in which permission is awaited from the Supreme Court. In addition, she been instructed in some of the most defining cases of the last year in extradition law: Puceviciene v Lithuania  EWHC 1862) on s.12A; Alexander and Di Benedetto on s.2 and Cakule v Latvia  EWHC 2211 on human trafficking. She was also very recently instructed alone against a Silk and junior in a s.25 case (Bobbe v Poland) which may change the legal test relating to suicide cases following the new CJEU case of CK and others v Slovenia  3 CMLR 10. In addition, she successfully represented an Appellate requested person (Debiec v Poland) in one of the first cases in which s.25 has been successful in EAW cases since Poland v Wolkowicz  EWHC 102 (Admin). Saoirse has also represented both Requested Persons (Albania v Sultan Dragjoshi) and Judicial Authorities (Turkey v Charles  A.C.D.84) in Part 2 cases.
Saoirse published a chapter on Judicial Review in Extradition Proceedings in Criminal Justice Review (Hart, 2014). She won the first judicial review in the area where the requested person in extradition proceedings was not removed within the statutory time period (see R (on the application of Mechlinksi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 2043 (Admin)). She was also an assistant editor of the 2014-2015 Extradition Law Reports.
She compliments her practice with her passion for international human rights work. This began as a legal researcher at the Humanitarian Law Centre in Belgrade and advising in the foreign policy department in Washington D.C. for the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Adapting her advocacy skills from the court-room to the field, Saoirse is regularly posted on OSCE election monitoring missions in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, last Summer Saoirse acted as pro-bono counsel in refugee camps in Chios, Greece where she represented Syrian refugees at hearings which would determine whether they would be deported to Turkey following the EU-Turkey deal.
- Asylum and Immigration
- Judicial Review
The Supreme Court considers prison conditions assurances for the first time in Lord Advocate v De...
Making waves – Alexander and Di-Benedetto: “eking out” s.2 points with further information ...
The EU-Turkey refugee deal only succeeded in one thing
Criminal Judicial Review
Appointments & Memberships
- Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum (Committee member)
- Trustee of Bail for Immigration Detainees
- Extradition Lawyers Association
- The Administrative Law Bar Association
- The Human Rights Lawyers Association
- Young Legal Aid Lawyers
- Lincolns Inn
- Assistant Editor of Extradition Law Reports
- Interviewing panel of Lincoln’s Inn Scholarship Committee
Goluchowksi v District Court in Elblag, Poland and Sas v Circuit Court and District Court in Jelenia Gora, Poland  UKSC 36
Cakule v Latvia [2016) EWHC 2211 (Admin)
Gardjas v Poland  EWHC 198 (Admin)
GS v Hungary  EWHC 64 (Admin)
Miniauskas v Lithuania  EWHC 3530 (Admin)
R (on the application of Mechlinksi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 2043 (Admin)
Atraskevic v Poland  EWHC 131 (Admin)
R (on the application of Sas) v Poland  648 (Admin)
Cogan v Spain  EWHC 89 (Admin)
Elashmawy v Italy  EWHC 28 (Admin)
DW (A Child) (Termination of Parental Responsibility)  EWCA Civ 315
Kramek v Judicial Authority in Warsaw, Poland  EWHC 3636 (Admin)
Dobryznski v Poland  EWHC 4513 (Admin)
Stasiuk v Poland  EWHC 2032 (Admin)
Re DW (A Child) (Termination of Parental Responsibility)  EWCA Civ 315