Extradition success stories

With one of the biggest extradition departments in the country we have been involved in some of the major success stories in extradition law in recent years.


Extradition refused for AN, a Cypriot national, who was accused of issuing numerous cheques to a business partner which were not honoured when the latter tried to cash them.  A challenge under s10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 was raised, namely that the conduct would not have amounted to an offence in this jurisdiction.  The District Judge upheld this challenge and AN was discharged.


C was arrested in respect of a request from the USA concerning drug offences from 2009.  C had no realistic bars to their extradition, however, were able to liaise with lawyers in the USA in order to provide them with important information concerning C.  The best case scenario was to secure a plea deal in the USA and allowing C to return to the UK as quickly as possible.  This was a classic example where despite there being no arguable grounds to stop extradition we were able to place C in a better position in the requesting country before they arrived.

M v Moldoveanu

M was arrested pursuant to an extradition request from Moldova for fraud offences.  M was a Moldovan national and his extradition was barred on the basis that the prison conditions would have breached his Article 3 rights.

M v Greece

M was arrested pursuant to an EAW issued by Greece for attempted murder in 2005.  M was an Albanian national who had health concerns and a family in the UK.  M’s extradition was ordered by the District Judge but the decision was successfully appealed on the grounds that the conditions of the prison that M was likely to be held in would have breached his Article 3 rights.

Czech Republic v C

C was arrested in respect of an EAW issued by the Czech Republic for a significant sentence to serve in respect of a conviction for fraud.   C had 4 children and her partner was not deemed competent to look after the children on his own.  Using a number of experts including a child psychologist to assess the impact on all of the children her extradition was stopped as it would have been disproportionate interference with her family life.

The Netherlands v D

C was arrested pursuant to a EAW issued by The Netherlands for a murder alleged to have taken place in 1988 in Amsterdam.  C was an English citizen and TV personality.  D was granted bail at his first hearing and was subsequently discharged due to deficiencies with the EAW.

France v K

K was arrested without notice pursuant to an EAW issued by France accusing him of a fraud worth 5millions Euros. The conduct was said to have occurred in 2009. K was an English citizen who had health concerns and a family life in the UK. The District Judge found that extradition was barred because the conduct did not constitute and offence in the UK, surrender would be oppressive due to the passage of time and that extradition was disproportionate in respect of his private life in the UK. This decision was not appealed.

S v Poland

S was requested by Poland to serve a sentence of 11 months in respect of a fraud conviction from 2008. The sentence was originally suspended and activated for non-payment of a fine. S was settled in the UK, had not committed any further offences and had a young family. Mr Justice Singh over turned the District Judges’ decision on the basis it would constitute a disproportionate interference with his private and family life.

Portugal v C

G was arrested pursuant to an EAW from Portugal. With our assistance, his lawyers in Portugal were able to secure an acquittal in his absence and the warrant was withdrawn without the requirement to surrender to the requesting state.

Romania v M

M was sought to serve an outstanding sentence of 4 years and six months imposed in his absence for offending that had occurred 10 years prior to his arrest in the UK, the Romanian authorities failed to provide an explanation of the delays. M had lead an impressive law abiding life in the UK and a young family who were settled in the UK. Extradition was found to be barred by virtue of the passage of time and the disproportionate interference it would have with M’s family and private life.

Re: M

M was contacted by the British Police and invited for interview in respect of an allegation of a serious sexual assault on a British national in Germany. The German prosecutor had submitted a request for questioning to the British authorities. SMW were instructed to assist in respect of that matter. We co-ordinated the matters both here and in Germany, assisting our German lawyers to put together a defence.  Following this submission the German prosecutor closed the case without charges. The strategy decisions taken in this case were crucial to getting a swift conclusion in our clients favour, without the need for an interview in the UK.

Current Instructions

  • K v Bulgaria – instructed in an appeal against extradition to Bulgaria
  • Brazil v D – We are instructed to represented a Brazilian national accused of an attempted murder in 1994.
  • Russia v V – V is wanted in respect of a banking fraud
  • USA v S – S is wanted for transfer of property across the state border, there are issues of fitness to plead and fitness to attend court.

Call us now on 020 7481 9157 and ask for Chris Stevens or Katy Smart