Judicial Review

 
 
 
 
 

Overview

With the potential for serious injustices in extradition 9BR Chambers advise and contest cases through judicial review even outlining the parameters of extradition law itself.

Our extradition barristers frequently provide advice for clients on judicial review applications and interim injunctions, or stays, to halt removal from the UK.

Our extradition team have appeared in key extradition judicial reviews where requested persons have contested decisions made by district judges, so outlining the parameters of judicial review in extradition law.

What is the role of judicial review in extradition?

Judicial review is a civil remedy where the High Court rectifies serious injustices that would otherwise evade challenge. Given the narrow scope of appeal routes in the Extradition Act 2003, judicial review can be vital. In suitable cases, it is the most effective remedy since it nullifies or quashes a decision made by a lower court or a public body such as the police, NCA, or the Home Office.

R (Sikora) v. Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2022] EWHC 3516 (Admin)


On whether a judge was correct to proceed at an extradition hearing in a requested person’s absence after the judge telephoned him without an interpreter and he could not be properly understood.

R (Salomon) v. Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2022] EWHC 83 (Admin)


Oon the meaning and nature of consent in extradition proceedings where a requested person said that he was given poor legal advice and, had he been properly advised, he never would have consented at his first hearing.

Celczynski v. Poland [2019] EWHC 3450 (Admin)


On whether a judge was correct to allow a requested person to consent when he was not legally represented.

Lazarov v. Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 3050 (Admin)


On the requirement for a judge to give adequate reasons that actually address the facts and circumstances of a case.