Extradition Order Appeals
Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court (in Part 1 cases), and/or the Secretary of State (in Part 2 cases) are brought before the High Court in London.
Grounds of appeal must be deemed arguable to proceed to a full appeal hearing.
In addition to successful appeals against extradition orders made in respect of our own clients, we have also won appeals on behalf of numerous clients who were unrepresented in the Magistrates’ Court, or who were represented by a different firm which withdrew from the case.
So, whatever stage your case is has reached, we may be able to help
Can extradition be stopped?
Successfully challenging a request is not easy, not least because, in respect of many countries, there is a starting presumption in favour of extradition taking place. This is to promote and enforce the mutual recognition of requests.
However, with the right expertise, it certainly is possible to overcome that presumption and to prevent extradition.
Am I entitled to legal aid?
Legal aid for appeals is not means-tested and is normally granted in extradition.
Get in touch to discuss your options.e in respect of certified European Arrest Warrants,
Brexit and the Implications for Extradition
The amended withdrawal agreement, which came into law on 31st January 2020, provides for the current extradition arrangements, including the European Arrest Warrant scheme, to remain in operation until the end of a transition period in December 2020.
Different legal considerations are likely to apply to those arrested after 31st January but before the end of the transition period and interesting legal questions are likely to arise.
The government’s current proposal as to what happens beyond the transition period is to replace the distinction between Part 1 and Part 2 extradition requests with a system distinguishing instead between ‘trusted’ countries and others. The former will be able to issue a request for a requested person’s arrest via an agency such as Interpol. That request will carry an immediate power of arrest, just as is currently the case in respect of certified European Arrest Warrants so that there will no longer be any requirement to apply for an arrest warrant from a District Judge.
There remain far more questions than answers as to how this might work in practice.
For example, what factors will be considered in deciding whether to treat another country as ‘trusted’? Will this be an exclusively legal decision, or will diplomatic considerations also play a role?
Take the following example:
In recent years, several European countries have witnessed moves said to have significantly eroded the independence of their judges from the executive. This could result, it is argued, in renewed political interference in the extradition process. The question is the extent to which this might, if proved, influence the decision to designate a country as ‘trusted’.
This, in turn, is part of a wider question: to what extent, if at all, will E.U. human rights law continue to apply to the extradition decision-making process after the transition period? The answer to this question will have important implications.
Imagine, for instance, that a significant divergence of opinion arises between the courts in this country and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) about the correct interpretation and application of human rights principles. Which view will prevail? It is the domestic legal view which surely must be regarded as supreme. Does this mean that the decisions of the ECtHR will no longer be treated as binding in this country? This is important because the shared recognition of those decisions allows judicial authorities in different countries in the E.U. to treat requests for extradition with ‘mutual trust and confidence’. Will this principle survive any changes that are made?
Another question is whether, and to what extent, we might see a return to more bilateral rather than multilateral extradition arrangements, and whether that results in greater legal complexity and delay.
The potential for an increased reliance upon the Red Notice system raises other questions. Concerns have been raised, for instance, as to whether Interpol is sufficiently accountable.
There is also a question as to what safeguards exist to help Interpol guard against the admission of improper requests for the issuance of alerts – such as requests made for political reasons or to settle commercial disputes – rather than in relation to any alleged criminality.
Finally, it is not yet known whether and, if so, to what extent, the U.K. will retain access after the transition period to important E.U. databases, such as criminal records and Europe-wide alerts. Police say access to this information is a critical tool in the prevention and detection of crime.
Why choose National Legal Service Solicitors for your extradition appeals?
Our extradition lawyers have successfully prevented the extradition of clients wanted all over Europe. We have defeated dozens of requests from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Lithuania and Hungary, to name but a few examples.
We also represent clients wanted in non-EU countries. People we have represented have been wanted in countries ranging from Australia and Albania to Peru and the United States.
We have successfully appealed against extradition to countries all over the world, including Poland, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Lithuania and Hungary.