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.
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.
Government of Turkey v Tanis  EWHC 1675 (Admin) – Nicholas Hearn led Hannah Burton before the Divisional Court, representing the Government of the Republic of Turkey. OT was wanted in respect of alleged terrorist offences, arising from his alleged support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (the PKK). The case involved of prejudice at trial, Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Government of Thailand v NR – Nicholas Hearn led Hannah Burton to represent the Government of Thailand. The requested person’s extradition was sought to prosecute him for an offence of providing financial advice without a licence to do so. The case involved issues of dual criminality, whether a prima facie case had been established, compatibility of extradition with Article 3 and Article 6 of the ECHR and an alleged abuse of process.
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..
Badea v Romania  EWHC 1025 (Admin) – Hannah Burton represented the requesting judicial authority in a case considering whether Article 597 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement requires a modified approach to the assessment of compatibility of extradition with Article 8.
Saptelei v Romania  EWHC 506 (Admin) – Joel Smith led Hannah Burton before a Divisional Court representing the requesting judicial authority. The case concerned the applicability of s.21A of the Extradition Act 2003 (proportionality) to conviction cases where the requested person is entitled to a retrial upon surrender.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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
“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 requesting authority or state, please contact our prosecution clerk, Fred Cross.
For representation of a requested person, please contact our defence extradition clerk, Chris Baptiste.