Extradition & Interpol
The specialist practitioners in the extradition team at 9 Bedford Row have significant experience appearing on behalf of requested persons and governments in extradition proceedings at all levels. Members act in European Arrest Warrant cases concerning ‘Category 1’ states, and in proceedings involving extradition requests issued by ‘Category 2’ territories outside European Union. After a no-deal Brexit, the UK government proposes that EU states will become ‘Category 2’ territories.
Our extradition barristers advise requested persons prior to arrest and provide representation throughout the entirety of the proceedings: from their first appearance at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to the conclusion of any appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Members of the team are also regularly instructed by the Extradition Unit of the Crown Prosecution Service to act for requesting states in complex extradition cases.
Our team’s wide-ranging international expertise means that members are especially well placed to advise in ‘crisis’ type situations and appear in challenging cases involving: war crimes and crimes against humanity; issues of political motivation; abuse of process and complex legal challenges arising out of the differences between civil and common law systems.
9 Bedford Row’s experience and reputation in international law guarantees access to a broad network of legal experts across Europe and beyond. Drawing on our network, our barristers are able to work in tandem with lawyers in requesting states to obtain evidence to resist extradition or push for alternatives to extradition such as European Investigation Orders, voluntary attendance or prisoner transfers.
Barristers at 9 Bedford Row are mindful that if there is a no-deal Brexit, the UK’s extradition arrangements with EU countries will face sudden change. Our extradition barristers are well-placed to advise clients in the new potential legal landscape, in particular with respect to the implications of a no-deal Brexit on extradition proceedings between the UK and EU Member States in the post-Brexit environment.
9 Bedford Row are also committed to holding requesting states to account where they infringe rights of those already extradited, eg. in unjustified pre-trial detention in accusation cases. Our extradition barristers are able to work with local lawyers to take international law arguments through the national system before pursuing complaints in international forums such as the European Court of Human Rights.
INTERPOL Red Notices
In recent years, Interpol's Red Notices have been used increasingly by states as an abuse of power to harass and intimidate individuals, particularly in countries where the rule of law is not respected.
Our extradition barristers have significant experience in assisting clients with successfully challenging INTERPOL Red Notices. Members of our team have successfully lobbied INTERPOL’s Commission for Control of INTERPOL’s Files for deletion of data on numerous occasions. Members are able to advise on challenging questions of confidentiality, pre-emptive requests, diffusions, blue or green notices and the use of other international mechanisms to build the case for deletion.
Our specialist Interpol Red Notice Desk aims at helping individuals to find out more about personal information held by Interpol, notices pending or issued and how to seek their removal.
Recent and notable cases
Poland v C, 2019 – Requested Person wanted to serve a sentence of 3 years 6 months in Poland for offences including assault and theft discharged from two EAWs.
Belgium v R, 2019- Challenge to the extradition of an individual wanted to serve his sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment for 42 human trafficking offences.
Szatkowski v Poland  EWHC 883 (Admin) /  1 W.L.R. 4528 – Case developing the interpretation of s 20 of the Act in light of Article 4a(1)(c) of the EAW Framework Decision and the EU law principle of conforming interpretation.
X v Spain, 2019 – Challenge to unjustified pre-trial detention in Spain following extradition from a non-EU country (European Court of Human Rights).
Ireland v J, 2019 – Case involving a challenge to the extradition of a man accused of 42 serious sexual offences including multiple allegations of rape.
Poland v K – Prosecution of a complex unlawful banking / fraudulent loans scheme involving 2,981 offences and extensive dual criminality arguments.
N v Poland, 2019 – Case involving a man seeking to challenge his extradition to serve a term of imprisonment following his conviction for burglary.
UK v K, 2019 – Import extradition from the Netherlands where a UK EAW warrant alleging historic sex offences raised questions of abuse of process under Dutch law.
Bulgaria v Grigorov, 2019 – Representation of the Judicial Authority in a case involving a challenge to extradition on the basis of Article 8 rights of an individual convicted of robbery and theft in Bulgaria.
L v Germany, 2018 – Case involving a challenge to extradition for a man sought for a £100,000 fraud.
Germany v S, 2018 – Requested person discharged from German EAW alleging aggravated burglaries of jewellers.
Austria v AP-N  EWHC 3371 (Admin) –Landmark case in which the High Court discharged the requested person on the grounds of passage of time.
Georgia v Kezerashvili, 2016 – Extradition proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, in a case involving multiple extradition requests for the former Defence Minister of Georgia.
Wilby and Halliday v. Czech Republic  EWHC 1006 (Admin) – Case involving a challenge to extradition to the Czech Republic for serious drug trafficking offences.
Istanek v. Czech Republic  EWHC 1498 (Admin) – Case involving submissions pursuant to section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003; specifically, whether a right to retrial was inconsistent with a fugitive being a convicted person for the purposes of extradition.
Italy v Barone  EWHC 3004 (Admin) – Case seeking the extradition of a man for offences of aggravated murder, attempted robbery and illegal possession and carrying of arms. The case involved legal argument on abuse of process and delay pursuant to section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003.
INTERPOL Red Notices
Sayed Abdellatif v INTERPOL / Egypt – Red notice arising from torture evidence used in a mass trial violated Article 2 of INTERPOL’s Constitution.
W v INTERPOL / Sri Lanka – Public red notice against prominent refugee blogger ultimately removed following detailed submissions on political motivation.
X v INTERPOL / Italy – Removal of an unjustified diffusion / green notice limiting freedom of movement in the context of a pending money-laundering trial
K v INTERPOL / Georgia – Removal of red notice which failed to respect Article 3 of the INTERPOL constitution due to its predominant political motive.
Extradition & Interpol Profile
020 7489 2727
... 9 Bedford Row is recognised as being ‘among the foremost experts in the field of international criminal law’ and is "one of the best crime sets of barristers in London".
Legal 500, 2018