Romanian Extradition success

Mahwish Salah-ud-din represented a Romanian National (and a professional individual) who was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and remanded in custody for months, pending extradition to Romania. It was alleged that our client had committed fraud which was absolutely refuted; it was in essence an ongoing civil dispute.

The EAW hearing was adjourned pending a response from the Romanian Government; we were seeking assurances from the Romanian authorities concerning conditions in Romanian prisons, because our client was seriously ill. The requested assurances were not forthcoming and we applied to discharge the EAW proceedings successfully.

This was a result of Mahwish’s sheer determination to do the very best for her client, and the excellent advocacy skills of Martin Henley of Counsel (186 Great James St).

Martin Lewis of Counsel (Castle Chambers) was instructed by Jeffrey Lewis (and yes, they are related) to represent a Fine Art installer working for one of the leading London art galleries, who faced immediate disqualification from driving when charged with using a mobile phone when driving. He had 10 points on his licence already.

The client and his employer (who was desperate to retain his employee, because of his exceptional abilities) were both convinced that the Court would order an immediate driving ban, which would have meant the immediate loss of the client’s employment.

However, as a result of Jeffrey Lewis’ diligent and thorough preparation of the case, exceptional hardship was raised (based on the clients particular skills and the fact that he was supporting a disabled Father). The client’s employer gave evidence, and Martin Lewis successfully managed to persuade a very tough Magistrate not to disqualify our client but rather to impose low points and a fine, which meant that he was able to drive and keep his employment.

Martin Lewis also represented a professional driver who had exceeded the speed limit by over 30%. He already had 12 points on his licence, as a result of 4 previous speeding offences and was facing an automatic driving ban.

However thanks to Jeffrey Lewis‘ diligent case preparation and Martin Lewis’ excellent powers of persuasion, the sentencing court was persuaded to accept an exceptional hardship submission (the client was his family’s sole breadwinner). A further 6 points was imposed, making a grand total of 18 points, but he was not disqualified and could continue to drive for a living. The Lewis Brothers are a formidable motoring offence defence team, with very high success levels.

of our East London office, successfully represented an individual facing an allegation of robbery and false imprisonment (which he denied).

Adam had thoroughly prepared our clients defence, paying particular attention to the issue of Evidential Disclosure, and analysis of the unused material. Adam’s analysis concluded that there was a great deal of important material missing from the Unused Material, which would have supported his clients defence, outlined on his clients Defence Statement. It also supported successful legal challenges to the Prosecution case.

The CPS then attempted to present further material purported to be admissible evidence on the day of trial (sadly, a regular occurrence), which was successfully legally challenged by Adam and the excellent defence barrister, Karina Arden of 9 Bedford Row.

The case was stopped by the trial Judge, and the prosecution discontinued.

i. A Company Director faced a long term investigation concerning serious allegations of fraud and offences under the Companies Act 2006. As a result of Siobhain Egan‘s skillful handling of the various police interviews upon her clients behalf, and her tenacious approach to the management of the investigation, she was able to persuade the authorities to discontinue the investigation;

ii. A senior IT professional accused of forgery and dishonesty faced serious criminal proceedings until Siobhain was able to make successful representation regarding the merits of the prosecution and the fundamental issues concerning expert evidence;

iii. Siobhain represented an individual who faced trial concerning charges of fraud in a £multi million specialist fraud prosecution. The case took four years to come to court, and was especially complex for a number of reasons. Our client was defended by the superb Glenn Carrasco of Counsel, and was acquitted after a difficult 5 week trial.

i. Siobhain Egan represented an international businessman and company director, who was accused of being in possession of an offensive weapon, as he passed through security at Heathrow Airport. Quite obviously that is a very serious allegation per se, aggravated by the fact that the allegation occurred when at a major international airport.

However, the client, a man of good character, had the most basic defence; he simply did not know that the item had been placed in his hand luggage. During his interview with police (and without legal representation), he repeated his defence in full. The police and CPS decided to charge him in any event.

We applied to the Magistrates court for an adjournment of the first hearing, and wrote to the CPS asking that they properly review the decision to prosecute, however, it seemed that the case had not been allocated a reviewing lawyer and the police, CPS and the Court had assumed that our client would enter an early guilty plea (completely overlooking the defence which he raised). As a result the Magistrates Court simply refused to adjourn the matter, and we had no choice other than to advise our client to elect Crown Court trial (at additional expense). We did this because we knew that it was the only way to bring our representations about our clients case to the attention of a fully qualified CPS lawyer.

A long detailed letter of representations was drafted, unusually including defence witness statements (supporting our clients assertions) and character references, which were sent to the CPS for review. Thankfully somebody at the CPS saw the strength of our submissions and the case was discontinued, shortly before our clients first appearance in the Crown Court. Had the prosecution continued his livelihood would have been in immediate jeopardy.

Why did the police and the CPS not understand the defence which our client had clearly raised at the very earliest opportunity?

Why did it take a decision to elect trial to the higher court, before somebody at the CPS had the opportunity to read our submissions and finally take the decision to discontinue the case?

The Criminal justice system is in such an appalling state, because it has suffered years of fundamental cutbacks, redundancies and an inability to attract the requisite Calibre of lawyers and staff, that innocent individuals find themselves dragged into a Kafkaesque nightmare.

ii. Siobhain was instructed by a professional man, who faced allegations of coercion and control, false imprisonment and latterly three allegations of rape.

He had previously instructed a well known firm of lawyers who had advised him to plead guilty, which he refused to do. He then instructed Siobhain to defend him. She in turn instructed the excellent team of specialist defence barristers – Ms Dee Connolly leading Ms Nicola Cafferkey of 33 Bedford Row Chambers.

The evidence in the case was enormous; hundreds of hours of smart phone films and over 50,000 messages/emails, etc. We had a team of four lawyers analysing this material daily.

We instructed one of the foremost teams forensic experts in the Country, who downloaded evidence from smartphones (including one, which the Metropolitan Police had declared defunct) and retrieved over 50,000 examples of communication.

However, enormous problems began to arise with the CPS and disclosure.. at one stage we were definitively told in written correspondence by the CPS, that there was nothing further to disclose. However, the team of Connolly, Cafferkey and Egan were not to be thwarted and would not accept this to be an accurate assessment.

10 hearings later and after robust submissions in correspondence, a detailed s8 (application for further disclosure) and after a great deal of consistent pressure had been placed upon them together with many reviews by a host of senior CPS lawyers, the prosecution case against our client was eventually discontinued, shortly before trial. The moral of the story: Never give up!