CN & Ors v Hungary  – Hannah acts for the Hungarian Judicial Authorities as led junior to Amanda Bostock. The Hungarian Authorities seek the surrender of 4 individuals who are alleged to be leading members of an international organised criminal group engaged in a widespread fraudulent operation targeting elderly victims in Hungary.
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand v NR  – Hannah acts as led junior to Nicholas Hearn representing the Government of Thailand. The requested person’s extradition is sought to prosecute him for an offence of providing financial advice without a licence to do so. The case involves 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.
Marosan v Romania  EWHC 3098 (Admin) – consideration of whether time spend on remand in relation to domestic (UK) proceedings should be offset against the remaining sentence to be served in the requesting territory pursuant to Article 26 of the Framework Decision. The case involved arguments about the interpretation and applicability of the EU Law.
Government of the Republic of Turkey v OT  EWHC 1675 (Admin) – acting as led junior to Nicholas Hearn, Hannah represented the Government of the Republic of Turkey on appeal before a Divisional Court. OT was wanted in respect of alleged terrorist offences, arising from his alleged support for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (the PKK). The case involved large volumes of expert evidence and open-source material, relating to issues 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.
Al Awa v Czech Republic  EWHC 1297 (Admin) – acting as junior alone during all stages of proceedings, Hannah represented the requesting judicial authority. The central issue in the case related to the requested person’s mental health. It was argued that, in light of his Asperger Syndrome and depression, extradition would be oppressive. The case involved expert medical evidence from a psychiatrist.
Saptelei v Romania  EWHC 506 (Admin) – acting as led junior to Joel Smith, Hannah represented the requesting judicial authority before a Divisional Court. 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.
Krzyzanowski v Poland  EWHC 3401 (Admin) – acting as junior alone, representing the requesting judicial authority against an unrepresented requested person. Hannah was praised for her handling of the case.
Roberts v Romania  EWHC 199 (Admin) – The Appellant argued that the appropriate judge had been wrong to conclude that extradition was compatible with Article 3 and Article 8 of the European Convention Human Rights. The Appellant argued that the prison assurance provided by the Romanian Authorities was deficient, and also sought to rely upon fresh evidence from a Romanian lawyer to argue that a recent change in Romanian law meant that there was a real risk that the Appellant would be subject to inhumane and degrading treatment upon his surrender. Further, the Appellant relied upon fresh evidence to argue that the judge was wrong to conclude that extradition would be compatible with his right to a private and family life. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds.
Poland v Kuliszewski  – The Polish Authorities seek the surrender of the requested person to prosecute him for an allegation of murder. The requested person argues that extradition would be incompatible with his Article 6 rights to a fair trial on the basis of concerns about the independence of the Polish judiciary and concerns about the independence of the prosecution based on the specific circumstances of his case.
Romania v GM  – The requested person was discharged from extradition proceedings. It was successfully submitted that the European Arrest Warrant failed to comply with s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003, despite further information having been provided by the Issuing Judicial Authority. The case was distinguished from Goluchowski & Sas.
Poland v AS  – The requested person faced extradition on a conviction warrant in respect of numerous offences. Extradition was not contested in respect of 2 matters. In respect of the remaining matters, arguments were advanced under s.10 and s.20 of the Extradition Act 2003 in order to resist extradition. AS was discharged in respect of one matter, following successful submissions under s.10 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Poland v KJ  – KJ was requested to serve a term of imprisonment following the activation of his suspended sentence order. Activation occurred due to non-payment of a fine. Following proceedings in Poland, the activation of the suspended sentence order was postponed. This was brought to the attention of the Court and an adjournment was granted to enable the relevant information to be obtained. The Issuing Judicial Authority subsequently withdrew the Extradition Warrant.
Spain v AD  – AD was requested on an accusation warrant in respect of a stabbing. An argument under s.12A of the Extradition Act 2003 was advanced in order to resist extradition.
R v CJ and Others  (Hull Crown Court) – Hannah acted as led-junior to Kieran Galvin in a multi-handed, complex mortgage fraud. The client, a conveyancing clerk, faced 10 counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. Case preparation involved consideration of large volumes of conveyancing files, served as evidence and unused material. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/the-most-serious-complex-fraud-1349687
R v DC  (Inner London Crown Court) – The client, facing two counts of threatening another with a bladed article, was acquitted after trial. He accepted shoplifting and possessing a bladed article. He was found not guilty of threatening shop staff with a pair of scissors in order to make his escape.
R v MS  (Inner London Crown Court) – Client sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment having pleaded guilty to threatening another with a bladed article. The offence was religiously aggravated and occurred in the wake of the London Bridge Terror Attack. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jailed-knifeman-who-roamed-south-london-looking-to-stab-muslims-a3698086.html
R v JR  (St Albans Crown Court) – The client faced trial on 4 counts, involving 3 allegations of possessing bladed articles and an allegation of possessing a Class A drug (methadone). He was acquitted on one count of possessing a bladed article and of possessing methadone. It was successfully argued that the client did not know that the methadone in question was a controlled substance (s.28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
R v DR (Wood Green Crown Court) – Following conviction after trial for attempted burglary of a dwelling when the occupier was at home, the client received a suspended sentence order.
R v Johnson and Others  EWHC Crim 1613 (pupil to Alexia Power) – Hannah assisted Oliver Blunt QC and Alexia Power in researching whether the Court of Appeal can substitute its own findings of fact with those made by the trial judge.
R v S  (Nottingham Crown Court) – When acting as a stand-in junior to Stephen Moses QC defending a client charged with child cruelty, Hannah prepared written legal argument used to successfully oppose the admission of extra-jurisdictional bad character evidence.
R v O and M  (Ealing Magistrates Court) – Hannah defended a client charged on a joint enterprise basis with theft from a dwelling, worth £26,000. The case involved delicate issues of a sexual nature, which required tactful handling in cross-examination.
HCPC v XY  – The registrant faced multiple allegations, a number of which were alleged to amount to dishonest conduct. Hannah successfully argued that there was no case to answer in respect of 2 allegations. In respect of the remaining allegations, the facts were only found proved in respect of 1 allegation. Hannah successfully argued that the factual basis of the allegation did not amount to misconduct.
HCPC v CM  – The registrant faced allegations of dishonesty, arising from a failure to register with her regulator and, when re-registering, incorrectly declaring the date on which she last practiced. It was successfully argued that there had been no dishonesty. There was no finding of misconduct in relation to the remaining, accepted allegations.
NMC v CH  The registrant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the breath, having driven to work as a nurse while under the influence of alcohol and proceeding to commence her duties. A 6-month Suspension Order was imposed.