Regarded as professional and meticulous in her approach, with a keen eye for detail, Hannah accepts instructions in extradition, regulatory and criminal matters.
Extradition
Hannah is an established extradition practitioner with experience in cases governed by both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Hannah represents both requesting states and requested persons. Her experience also encompasses work under Part 3 of the Extradition Act 2003, particularly drafting requests for the return of a suspect for prosecution in this jurisdiction. She has been appointed to the CPS’ Specialist Extradition Advocate Panel at Level 3.
Hannah acts at all stages of proceedings, including proceedings before the High Court, both as led-junior and junior alone. She also has experience representing requesting judicial authorities in complex, multi-handed cases.
Regulatory
Hannah acts for Registrants appearing before the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health & Care Professions Council at all stages of proceedings.
While on secondment to Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP, Hannah assisted in the preparation of written advice in respect of suspected insider dealing contrary to the Market Abuse Regulation.
Crime
Having acted as led-junior and junior alone, Hannah has experience in the Crown, Magistrates and Youth Courts at all stages of proceedings. Her caseload has involved a wide variety of offences, including allegations of violence in a domestic and non-domestic setting, possession of weapons including threats made with weapons, possession and supply of drugs, dishonesty including burglary and fraud, public disorder, and sexual offences.
In 2018, Hannah acted as led-junior in a multi-handed, complex mortgage fraud, representing a conveyancing clerk.
Hannah was seconded to the Business Crime Department of Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP in 2017, and then again in 2018-2019. Hannah worked closely with Partners and Associates on a wide range of cases. Hannah’s time was predominantly spent working on an internal investigation on behalf of a large, multinational corporation. This involved researching and reporting on specific issues of law and regulation to assist in advising the client, conducting a large-scale document review, and assisting with the application of factual findings to issues arising during the course of the investigation.
Government of Armenia v H.Gyonjyan: Hannah acts as led junior representing the Government of Armenia, seeking the extradition of Mr Gyonjyan for his alleged involvement in a sophisticated scheme to defraud a grants scheme established by the Office of the European Union Delegation of approximately 2.5 million EUR. Mr Gyonjyan argues that extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 and Article 6 of the ECHR, that he is being prosecuted because of his political beliefs, and that he might be prejudiced at his trial or detained because of his political beliefs. He is self-representing after his relationship with two previous sets of representatives broke down. [2024] News story here
USA v Nicholls: Mr Nicholls is wanted in the USA for allegedly importing and subsequently distributing fentanyl (and other substances) using the dark web, resulting in the deaths of 2 U.S. Navy officers. The proceeds of the criminal activity were allegedly laundered. It was argued that there was a real risk that if convicted, Mr Nicholls would receive a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, meaning extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR. It was argued that, following the ECtHR decision of Sanchez-Sanchez (application no. 22854/20), a previous Divisional Court decision on the issue could no longer be followed. Here.
Urbonas & Ors v Lithuania: Lead case before a Divisional Court concerning prison conditions in correction houses in Lithuania. It was argued that extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 ECHR due to the risk of inter-prisoner violence, the situation not having improved since the Divisional Court’s decision in Bartulis v Lithuania [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin). It was also alleged that the Lithuanian authorities had breached their duty of candour by failing to disclose findings from the CPT Report that was relied upon to advance the argument on appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Government of Switzerland v Syed [2023] – Hannah acts as led junior to Nick Hearn, representing the Government of Switzerland. Mr Syed is alleged to have defrauded companies in the sum of £25 million in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, subsequently using the proceeds of his criminal activity to purchase, among other things, the Spanish football club, Racing Santander. Mr Syed argues that he has already been acquitted in Bahrain and should not be extradited to face the same allegations in Switzerland. (Here.)
Hungary v Berki & Erdelyi [2023] – Hannah represents the Hungarian Judicial Authorities in this complex multi-handed case. A husband and wife are wanted in Hungary on multiple arrest warrants. Ms Erdelyi currently does not have the capacity to engage in proceedings due to her poor mental health. Alongside arguments relating to Ms Erdelyi’s health, the requested persons also argue that they would be discriminated against by virtue of their Roma ethnicity, in the context of the current political climate in Hungary.
Poland v Ciepka [2023] – Hannah represents the Polish Judicial Authorities in this case, in which it is argued that the specific circumstances of Mr Ciepka’s case mean the issuing judicial authority is not a ‘judicial authority’ for the purpose of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition would be a breach of his Convention rights, namely the right to liberty and the right to a fair trial.
Government of the USA v Adafin & Taylor [2023] – Hannah represented the Government of the USA in multi-handed extradition proceedings concerning a sophisticated conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Dobrowolski v Poland [2023] EWHC 763 (Admin) – Hannah represented the Polish Judicial Authority throughout extradition proceedings. The requested person had suffered a traumatic brain injury since the offences giving rise to the extradition request which had caused significant health issues, including poor mental health. On appeal, the court considered the question of qualifying remand, and specifically whether a requested person should adduce expert evidence of foreign law in order to advance such arguments, or whether the provisions of foreign law cited in previous authorities could suffice.
Government of the USA v Chukwuma [2022] – Hannah represented the Government of the USA in extradition proceedings in relation to a sophisticated conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The fraud was perpetrated by individuals located in Nigeria who targeted American citizens with phishing scams to harvest large quantities of personal identifying information, which was subsequently used for the conspirators’ own gains.
Badea v Romania [2022] Q.B. 828 – Hannah represented the Respondent Judicial Authority before the Administrative Court in a case considering whether Article 597 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement requires a specific proportionality assessment when considering whether extradition is compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR under s.21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
CN & Ors v Hungary [2021] – 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 [2021] – 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 [2021] 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 [2021] 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 [2021] 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 [2021] 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 [2020] 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 [2020] 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 [2020] – 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 [2017] – 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 [2017] – 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 [2016] – 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 [2016] – 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 [2018] (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. News story here
R v DC [2017] (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 [2017] (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. News story here
R v JR [2017] (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 [2016] 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 [2016] (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 [2016] (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 [2020] – 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 [2017] – 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 [2017] 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.
In 2014, Hannah travelled to Colombia as part of an international delegation. She met with the victims of human rights violations and the organisations seeking to assist and protect those victims. The delegation addressed the Colombian authorities and the Colombian Government on the difficulties facing those who seek to protect human rights in Colombia.
Before commencing pupillage with Furnival Chambers, Hannah worked as a paralegal within the family department of a multi-discipline, accredited firm of solicitors. She gained a first-hand knowledge and understanding of the qualities that are important to a solicitor when instructing counsel.
Hannah volunteered as a support worker with the Personal Support Unit based at the Royal Courts of Justice. She provided practical and emotional support to litigants in person facing important hearings alone.
Northumbria University
M Law (exempting) (Upper Second Class Honours) (2014)
BPTC (Very Competent) (2014)
The Alan Davenport Memorial Prize for the best performance in Civil Liberties (2014).
The Northumbria Law School Prize for best performance by a BPTC Exempting student in Advocacy (Examination in Chief)
- The Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales
- DELF (Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum)
- Extradition Lawyers Association
- The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple
- Hannah is an active member of Chambers’ Pupillage Committee.
Hannah is regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
