Furnival Chambers has a formidable and highly regarded extradition team. Members represent Requesting States, Requested Persons and the Secretary of State in Part 1 and Part 2 cases and in remaining cases under the 1989 Act. Extradition is an area of law that continues to expand in both complexity and volume of cases. Amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 in July 2014 and April 2015 and a change in approach by the Courts to human rights arguments are but two examples of this. With members of the team devoting the majority of their practices to extradition law there is considerable expertise in Chambers and members are always available to advise and act in extradition matters both before Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the appellate courts.

Chambers’ specialist extradition team is led by Paul Garlick QC. Paul is recognised as a leading Silk in the field of extradition. He is described in Chambers and Partners 2014 as “one of the top-rank QCs when it comes to extradition and human rights”. Paul has for many years appeared for requested persons and governments in landmark extradition cases before the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In May 2012, Paul was appointed by the EU Commission as a member of the EU Commission Expert Group on EU Criminal Policy and has recently been appointed as an International Expert to the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Paul leads a team of experienced and committed juniors who have been have been, and continue to be, involved at the forefront of arguments on the conditions of prisons, particularly those in South Africa, Ukraine, Russia, Brazil, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Greece & Italy. In addition to human rights based challenges the team has a significant reputation of success and involvement in the technical challenges to extradition, including the lead Divisional Court case on the s.2 requirements for conviction warrants (Constantin Sandi v Romania). They are also able to provide experience and expertise in judicial review and habeas corpus challenges, reflected by conducting the landmark case which ensured the continuing existence of these routes of challenge under the Act (R. (on the application of Nikonovs) v Governor of Brixton Prison).

The calibre and expertise of the team is demonstrated by chambers’ frequent instructions in significant extradition cases in Europe, the Supreme Court and the Divisional Court and the recent appointment of a member to act as a Specialist Advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Extradition Act 2003.

Recent such cases in which members of Chambers have been instructed include:

  • Kandola & Droma v Germany; Ijaz v Italy [2015] EWHC 619 – leading authority on the new bar to extradition under s.12A of the Act
  • Miraszewski, Kanigowski & Flusniak v Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 – leading authority on the approach to take under the new bar of proportionality under s.21A of the Act.
  • Aleksynas & Others v Lithuania [2014] EWHC 437– leading authority on prison conditions within the penitentiary system in Lithuania.
  • Bucnys & Ors v Ministries of Justice of Lithuania & Estonia [2013] 3 WLR 1485 –Concerning whether a Ministry of Justice could be a ‘judicial authority’ for the purposes of s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • Brodziak, Madej, Dunec and Marczuk v Poland [2013] EWHC 3394 (Admin)– leading authority on the proper approach to EAWs issued in relation to aggregate sentences.
  • Wolkowicz & Ors v Poland & Ors [2013] 1 WLR 2402– Leading authority in relation to the extradition of individuals who pose a serious risk of suicide.
  • Harkins and Edwards v the UK (European Court of Human Rights, 2012; Application No. 32650/07): concerning whether possible life imprisonment without possibility of parole would violate Article 3 of the European Convention – overturned the House of Lords decision in Wellington regarding application of the Convention in extradition cases.

Directory Recommendations:

In Chambers Guide to the Bar 2014, Paul Garlick QC is noted as being “one of the top-rank QCs when it comes to extradition and human rights.”

Leading junior Joel Smith is “Noted for his ability to work under extreme time pressure” and is “an expert in extradition and clients like him. He is able to explain complex law to clients in a straightforward manner.”

Related news