Furnival Chambers boasts a team of highly regarded, specialist extradition counsel. The calibre and expertise of the extradition team is demonstrated by Chambers’ frequent instructions in significant extradition cases at all levels. Members are repeatedly instructed to represent Requesting States and Requested Persons in Part 1 and Part 2 cases, and have featured in many leading authorities on a variety of issues.
In addition to representing individuals and states in contentious litigation before the courts, members of the team are also available to provide advice to individuals who are (or fear they may be) subject to Red Notices. Nicholas Hearn, co-author of “A Practical Guide to Interpol and Red Notices” has particular experience advising individuals on the procedure for obtaining information held by Interpol and applications for the deletion of such material and the lifting of Red Notices.
Government of India v Singh – The Government of India request the extradition of S, alleged to have been involved in terrorist activity. Specifically, the Requested Person is alleged to be party to a conspiracy to murder Indian politicians and religious leaders. Joel Smith represents the requested person and Nicholas Hearn represents the Government of India.
Russian Federation v Egorova & Ors Catherine Brown is instructed as junior Counsel representing the Russian Federation in respect of a number of requests. The Requested Persons argue that extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 by virtue of the conditions in the Russian prison estate.
Bulgaria v Kavaldzhiev – Amanda Bostock continues to act for the Bulgarian authorities alone against leading and junior Counsel in this case which seeks the extradition of an individual for an alleged murder committed in the 1990’s. The case raises complex arguments grounded in CJEU case law and double jeopardy.
Government of India v Nirav Modi – Nicholas Hearn is currently instructed as led junior to represent the Indian Authorities in their request for the extradition of Mr Modi, a high-profile businessman alleged to have defrauded an Indian bank of in excess of $1bn.
Orsos & Ors v Hungarian Authorities – Joel Smith and Amanda Bostock are instructed (as leading junior and junior) to represent the Hungarian Authorities on an appeal brought in the wake of Szalai. The Appellants seek to adduce further evidence of breaches of Hungarian Prison assurances to argue that extradition is not compatible with Article 3.
Roach v Singapore – Catherine Brown is currently instructed for the Government of Singapore in an extradition request to prosecute the Requested Person for offences arising out of an armed robbery on a bank.
Russian Federation v Ilya Yurov– Nicholas Hearn was instructed on behalf of the Russian Federation in relation to an extradition request for an associate of Mikhail Khordokovsky accused of large-scale banking fraud and money laundering
Yilmaz & Yilmaz v Government of Turkey  EWHC 272 (Admin),  EWHC 1939 (Admin)– Joel Smith represented a requested person in a Turkish request raising issues as to compatibility of the Turkish prison estate with international human rights standards.
Croatia v Durdevic – Amanda Bostock recently acted for the Croatian government seeking the return of Mr Durdevic for war crimes allegedly committed in 1991.
Hoxhaj v The Government of Albania – Catherine Brown is instructed on behalf of the Requested Person, who is sought by the Albanian authorities in respect of offences of murder and attempted murder. Nicholas Hearn is instructed on behalf of the Government of Albania.
Lithuania v SK – Amanda Bostock successfully prevented the extradition of a young woman alleged to have been involved in a stabbing and gang rape. SK had suffered from complex mental health issues at the relevant time and had been living in the UK with her young daughter for several years.
Donna Francis v Government of the United States – Catherine Brown was instructed as a junior alone on behalf of the Government of the United States that sought the Requested Person’s surrender for prosecution for criminally negligent homicide. The Requested Person sought to argue that her extradition would be incompatible with her rights pursuant to Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions in America. The appeal was head by the Lord Chief Justice.
Szalai v Hungarian Judicial Authorities  A.C.D 68 – Amanda Bostock was junior Counsel for the Hungarian Authorities before the Administrative Court. It was successfully argued that evidence of breaches to prison assurances approved in Fuzesi did not render extradition to Hungary incompatible with Article 3. The matter is currently awaiting the outcome of an application to certify a point of law before the Supreme Court.
Government of the United States of America v Yolanda Cleveland  1 W.L.R. 4392 – Nicholas Hearn was led junior instructed to represent Mr Cleveland, who was accused of a joint-enterprise murder in the state of Georgia. Catherine Brown was junior Counsel on behalf of the Government of the United States. The Divisional Court clarified the state of the law with regard to dual criminality post the case of Norris  2 W.L.R. 673 and Assange  EWHC 2849 (Admin).
Georgiev, Dimitrov and Georgiev v Bulgarian Judicial Authorities  EWHC 359 (Admin) – Joel Smith and Julia Farrant (acting as leading junior and junior) on behalf of the Bulgarian Authorities appeared before the Divisional Court concerning the reliability of assurances as to prison conditions issued by the Bulgarian authorities.
Fuzesi & another v Hungary  EWHC 1885 (Admin) – As led junior, Amanda Bostock successfully achieved the continuation of extraditions between Hungary and the UK following the negotiation of and approval by the Divisional Court of inter-state assurances.
Di Benedetto v. Italy, Alexander v. France  QB 408 – Joel Smith represented Mr Di Benedetto before the Divisional Court which, further to Goluchowski, provided guidance on “correcting” invalid European Arrest Warrants through the provision of further information. It is now cited as leading authority on s.2 issues on the use of further information to correct deficiencies in the particulars of a European Arrest Warrant.
Purcell & Pengel v Belgium  EWHC 1981 (Admin) – Amanda Bostock was junior Counsel for the Belgian authorities in this overarching challenge to prison conditions which ultimately led to Belgian extraditions continuing without the need for any additional assurances.
Auzins v Latvia  1 W.L.R. 2981– Catherine Brown was instructed as led junior on behalf of the Latvian authorities before the Divisional Court. The case involved complex arguments on the correct statutory interpretation of several sections of the Extradition Act including those pertaining to the relationship between extradition proceedings and domestic criminal prosecutions.
Fox v Germany  EWHC 3396 (Admin) – Amanda Bostock was led junior for Germany in this Divisional Court examination of the appropriate authority to be considered capable of making decisions under s.12A of the Extradition Act 2003 within the German State.
Grecu and Bagarea v Romanian Judicial Authorities  4 W.L.R 139– Julia Farrant acted as junior Counsel in the leading case on Romanian prison conditions.
Sobczyk v Poland  EWHC 3353 (Admin) – Amanda Bostock appeared before the Divisional Court acting for Mr Sobczyk in this case examining the impact of delay by the UK authorities in acting upon extradition requests.
Goluchowski & Sas v Polish Judicial Authorities  UKSC 36 – Nicholas Hearn, acting as led junior, represented Mr Sas in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The case had a significant impact upon arguments under s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 regarding the validity of European Arrest Warrants.
Romanian Judicial Authorities v Edutanu et al  1 W.L.R 2933 – Julia Farrant appeared as led junior before the Divisional Court, which determined the validity of European arrest warrants where sentences for various offences have been merged and aggregated. This case is cited as leading authority on the issue.
Auzins v Latvia  4 W.L.R. 75 – Catherine Brown was instructed as junior Counsel on behalf of the Latvian authorities in this case which dealt with complex issues if law including whether issue estoppel arising from the application of res judicata was appropriate in the context of extradition proceedings.
Puceviciene & Others v Lithuanian Judicial Authorities & Others  1 W.L.R 4937 – Amanda Bostock acted as led junior before the then Lord Chief Justice (Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd) to represent the Lithuanian and German Authorities. This case provides the definitive guidance on the practical operation of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 (in relation to all extradition cases) intended to ensure that extradition only takes place when the requesting country has made a clear decision to charge and try.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania  1. W.L.R 3344 – Julia Farrant acted as led junior to represent the Romanian Authorities before the Divisional Court. The case provides authority on the status of the EAW Framework Decision and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union since the ‘opt-in/opt out’ of pre-Lisbon Treaty criminal justice measures.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski  1 W.L.R. 551 – Nicholas Hearn was instructed as junior alone to represent an appellant before a specially convened Divisional Court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice. The case is now cited as leading authority on the correct approach to be applied in cases where extradition is challenged on the basis that removal would amount to a disproportionate interference with an individual’s rights pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention.
Wisniewski et al v Polish Judicial Authorities  1 W.L.R 3750 – Julia Farrant was led before the Divisional Court in this matter, which is the leading authority on the passage of time bar in cases involving suspended sentences.
Szegfu v Hungary  EWHC 1764 (Admin) – Amanda Bostock acted alone before the Divisional Court (including the now Lord Chief Justice) for the Hungarian Government in the first (and now definitive) judicial interpretation of the new s.26 (5) of the Extradition Act 2003
Bucnys and ors. v. Lithuanian and Estonian Ministries of Justice  A.C 480. Supreme Court guidance on meaning of a “judicial authority” for the purposes of s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Joel Smith acted as junior counsel for the Appellant, Bucnys.
Brodziak v Polish Judicial Authority  A.C.D 59 – Nicholas Hearn, acting as led junior, represented the Polish Judicial Authorities. The appeal concerned “speciality” and the correct approach to be taken to European Arrest Warrants issued for multiple offences where one or more of the offences failed to satisfy the “dual criminality” requirements of the 2003 Act.
Polish Judicial Authorities v Wolkowicz and others  1 W.L.R 2402 – Nicholas Hearn, acting as led junior, represented the Polish Judicial Authority. Joel Smith represented one of the Appellant requested persons. The appeal concerned the approach that should be taken by courts when dealing with individuals facing extradition who are at a high risk of suicide.
Noted for its skilful handling of extradition cases concerning prison conditions, the set is hailed by clients as a “well organised” and “dedicated extradition team.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“First-class counsel with superb analytical and advocacy skills, who is pleasant to work with and very bright.” “A heavyweight lawyer with a fantastic mind,” who is “very much on top of complex and difficult cases.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“A first-rate junior with an incisive mind”. Legal 500 2020
“A brilliant advocate who is a credit to the profession.” “She is excellent in sensitive cases with vulnerable clients, and strong on mental health and child issues.” “She is always very inclusive when it comes to talking through ideas and strategies.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“Very sharp, experienced and user-friendly.” Legal 500 2020
“Possesses strong tactical awareness and analytical skills gained through his experience as both prosecutor and defender.” “Good on the more complicated cases, he is incredibly impressive with his technical knowledge and application of extradition law.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“A class act.” Legal 500 2020
“Extremely well versed in the law and has incredibly good advocacy skills. She is well prepared and makes very good arguments and skeleton notes.” “A tenacious advocate who has a great way with clients and a lovely manner. She picks up cases very quickly and can run with a case at very short notice.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“She quickly grasps the key issues of a case.” Legal 500 2020
“A very tough opponent” who is “very approachable and incredibly thorough in her preparation.” Chambers and Partners 2020
“Very approachable, and incredibly thorough in her case preparation.” Legal 500 2020
Co-author of David & Hearn “A Practical Guide to Interpol and Red Notices” published by Bloomsbury (2018).
For representation of a requested person, please contact our defence extradition clerk, Fred Cross.