Douglas specialises in extradition, inquiries, and investigations. He has experience advising and representing individuals, companies, and governments.
Douglas offers well-thought-out, focused advice and serves as a composed and determined advocate in court.
Background and Expertise
Douglas frequently receives instructions to advise and represent individuals facing extradition under both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act. He has represented and advised requested persons in extradition proceedings at both initial stages and on appeal. Douglas is experienced with requests for surrender from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America.
Before specialising in extradition, inquiries, and investigations Douglas prosecuted and defended domestic crime. Douglas has experience as a junior alone in single defendant and multi handed trials, handling cases involving offences of violence, blackmail, offensive weapons, and firearms and ammunition.
Prior to joining chambers Douglas gained experience at a leading criminal litigation practice known for representing high net worth and high-profile individuals, specialising in fraud and financial crime and complex crime.
Douglas has advised a company concerned in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, advised HMRC in relation to Legal Professional Privilege in relation to offenses arising from an Employee Benefit Trust Scheme, assisted a company in relation to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, acted as junior counsel to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, and assisted in the provision of advice to the Government of South Sudan.
Notable Cases
The Republic of Turkey v UM, Ongoing
Mr M is sought by Turkey following a conviction for his membership of an armed terrorist organisation.
Douglas is being led by Joe Middleton KC.
France v B, 2024
Mr B was sought by France pursuant to a conviction warrant to serve a sentence of six months’ imprisonment.
The principal argument advanced on his behalf was that the time spent subject to an electronically monitored curfew as part of his bail conditions in the extradition proceedings meant that he had served his sentence according to French law, relying on the decisions in A v France [2022] EWHC 3214 (Admin) and Doha v France [2023] EWHC 2561 (Admin). It was argued that his extradition would amount to a disproportionate breach of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and would be abusive.
Mr B’s legal team obtained expert evidence demonstrating how the French law would be applied in his case. Given the strength of that evidence, District Judge Matson listed the matter and removed the curfew, electronic monitoring, and reporting requirements from Mr B’s bail conditions.
The French authorities were directed to provide further information and declined to do so. One month later, the French authorities withdrew the warrant and Mr B was formally discharged by District Judge Pilling.
Jonathan Swain was initially instructed to represent Mr B, the matter was transferred to Douglas the day before the substantive hearing.
Poland v P, 2024
Ms P was sought by Poland to serve a one-year prison sentence having been convicted in her absence in 2007 of “misappropriation of movable property” occurring between 2000 and 2001. The property was valued at approximately £8,500.
District Judge Matson when discharging Ms P found that the warrant seeking her surrender was invalid in that it did not sufficiently particularise the location of the offending pursuant to s.2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 when read with s.2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 and King v the Public Prosecutor of Villefrance sur Saone [2015] EWHC 3760 (Admin).
Further, the District Judge found that the offence could not be said to have occurred within Poland nor could it be said to be an extradition offence pursuant to s.65 of the Extradition Act 2003 and discharged Ms P pursuant to s.10(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Ms P was discharged and the Crown Prosecution Service indicated that they would not appeal the decision.
The Netherlands v X, 2024
Mr X’s surrender was sought by the Netherlands to face trial for his alleged participation in an organised criminal group and the export of nearly 1 tonne of cocaine from the Netherlands. The evidence against Mr X was collated from Encrochat. Following the service of an expert report which indicated the warrant was invalid the Netherlands withdrew the warrant, Mr X was discharged, and immediately released from custody.
New Zealand v NW, 2024
Mr W was sought in respect of his alleged involvement in numerous fraud offences between 2012 and 2015 to the value of nearly $2,000,000 NZD.
Douglas was led by Ben Joyes.
Belgium v C, 2023
Mr C was sought for 186 convictions for making false statements, the falsification and forgery of documents, and fraud. Mr C was convicted of doing so as part of a group over a period of one month in 2017. Douglas argued that the particulars contained in the warrant in regard to the requested person’s role in the offending were insufficient in setting out his position in the hierarchy of the group and consequently the transposition exercise could not be satisfactorily completed,
Mr C was discharged by District Judge Minhas on 23 October 2023, finding that the warrant for Mr C’s surrender was insufficiently particularised under s.2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Romania v C, 2023
Ms C was sought by Romania for violent offences committed in September 2016. During the extradition proceedings efforts were made to address the conviction in Romania by the defence team. Following the final hearing, before judgment, the warrant was withdrawn by the Requesting Judicial Authority.
ExtraditionNews
View all
Achievements
- Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum
- Extradition Lawyers Association
- International Bar Association
- The Criminal Bar Association
- The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
- CPS General Crime Panel (Grade 2)
- Attorney General Panel (Junior Junior)
- LLB Honours Law Degree, The University of Manchester, 2019 (First Class)
- Bar Professional Training Course, BPP University Law School, 2020
- Sir Edward Marshall-Hall Scholarship, The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
- Major Scholarship, The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
- Duke of Edinburgh Scholarship, The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
- Advocacy Scholarship, BPP University Law School
- Excellence Scholarship, BPP University Law School
- PASS Scholarship, The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple