Sulaiman v France  EWHC 2868 (Admin)
Amanda represented the French authorities in a complicated case concerning abuse of process and specialty. Ultimately the court determined, in favour of France, that there was no abuse of process and that the money laundering charges contained in the European Arrest Warrant were extra-territorial in effect
Puceviciene & Others v Lithuania & Others  EWHC 1862 (Admin)
Amanda, led by John Hardy QC, represented the judicial authorities of Germany and Lithuania in this guideline case before the Lord Chief Justice. The case provides definitive guidance on the practical operation of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, intended to ensure that extradition only takes place when the requesting country has made a clear decision to charge and try. Section 12A was introduced following the highly publicised case of Andrew Symeou who spent 10 months in pre-trial detention in Greece following his extradition for charges upon which he was later acquitted.
Szegfu v Court of Pecs, Hungary  EWHC 1764 (Admin);  WLR (D) 273
Amanda was instructed on behalf of the Hungarian judicial authority for whom she was listed as preferred counsel in the prison conditions cases which followed the ECHR pilot judgment in Varga & Others v Hungary of 10th March 2015.
The case of Szegfu was heard before Burnett LJ and Cox J sitting as a Divisional Court to provide guidance on the application of section 26(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. Amanda successfully opposed the arguments raised by the defence and the court set definitive guidance on the application of the new legislation relating to the time limits for bringing an extradition appeal in section 26(4).
Zagorskij v Vilnius County Court, Lithuania  EWHC 2335 (Admin)
Amanda represented the Lithuanian authorities in a challenge based on whether a homosexual man would be likely to suffer ill treatment in custody in Lithuania such as to constitute a breach of article 3. The Divisional Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd) and Mr Justice Mitting found, in favour of the Lithuanian authorities, that there was no evidence to support the submissions of the defence.
R v EN (Highbury Corner Youth Court)
Amanda defended a 15 year old boy who was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent following the stabbing of a young male in Tottenham. Following lengthy legal submissions and cross examination of the complainant, both EN and his co-defendant were acquitted.
R v Ahmed and others
Amanda successfully represented a defendant accused with his two brothers of wounding a member of their extended family. All three brothers were identified by name by 5 witnesses. After an 8 day trial and extensive cross examination of those witnesses, the jury acquitted on all counts.
TL v the Parole Board of England and Wales
Amanda represented TL, a teenager sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP), who sought a transfer to open conditions at his first pre-tariff parole hearing. TL had been convicted of grave crimes including rape and serious assault. Further to Amanda’s submissions and cross-examination of psychologists and other expert witnesses, TL was granted a move to open conditions enabling him to apply for release on tariff expiry.
R v Brown
Amanda represented a defendant serving a substantial IPP sentence who was accused of assaulting two prison officers. Mr Brown’s defence of pre-emptive self-defence was successful following Amanda’s thorough cross-examination of 5 prison officers who had witnessed the assault and gave evidence for the prosecution. Mr Brown’s own evidence formed the entirety of the defence case.