Hannah Burton

Contact Hannah: hannahburton@matrixlaw.co.uk | +44 (0)20 7404 3447

Contact Hannah's Practice Team (Team T): TeamT@matrixlaw.co.uk

Hannah’s practice encompasses extradition, criminal, regulatory, public and administrative law. She frequently advises on issues involving human rights in both a domestic and international context. Hannah is therefore well placed to advise on matters involving cross-cutting issues. She has experience acting for individuals, companies, Government departments, foreign Governments, and international judicial authorities.

Hannah has particular expertise in extradition law, frequently advising individuals, foreign Governments and judicial authorities.

Extradition

Hannah is an established extradition practitioner with experience in cases governed by both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Hannah represents both requesting states and requested persons. Her experience also encompasses work under Part 3 of the Extradition Act 2003, requesting a person’s extradition to the United Kingdom. She has been appointed to the CPS’ Specialist Extradition Advocate Panel at Level 3.

Hannah acts at all stages of proceedings, including proceedings before the High Court, both as led-junior and junior alone, with experience in complex, multi-handed cases.

• Cypriot Judicial Authority v LJ & KK – representing the judicial authority. Issues raised include Article 3 ECHR in respect of prison conditions and the reliability of assurances.
• Government of Moldova v AB – representing the Government. AB sought to serve a sentence for rape and face prosecution for a series of alleged robberies. Issues include Article 3 ECHR prison conditions and presence at trial.
• Government of North Macedonia v ET –representing the Government against silk and junior. ET sought to serve a 9 year sentence for producing and supplying controlled drugs. Issues raised include double jeopardy, Articles 2 & 3 ECHR (prison conditions and medical care), right to retrial and oppression due to ill-health.
• Government of Moldova v VP & MM – acting as led junior seeking extradition to prosecute the requested persons for their alleged involvement in a $22 billion money laundering scheme and associated offences. Issues include double jeopardy, extraneous considerations (political opinions), passage of time, forum, Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 & 10 ECHR and abuse of process.
• Government of USA v SE & DA – representing DA on a discrete issue, specifically the risk of ill-treatment in immigration detention following the conclusion of criminal proceedings in the USA.
• Polish Judicial Authority v MG – represented MG, arguing that extradition is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR as there is no recognition of same-sex marriages and a hostile attitude towards LGBTQ+ community in Poland, combined with the impact of extradition upon MG’s husband’s mental health.
• Government of India v PA– led junior representing the Government. PA sought for allegedly exporting controlled drugs from India to the UK. Multiple issues raised, including prima facie case, abuse of process (purported impropriety in the police investigation), Article 3 ECHR, forum, oppression due to mental and physical health (including early onset dementia).
• Government of Australia v WHG – representing the Government. A British citizen is sought for prosecution in respect of an allegation of rape while in Australia on a working visa. Issues raised include Article 3 ECHR and oppression due to suicide risk.
• Finnish Judicial Authority v PA – representing the judicial authority. PA sought to serve a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed for his involvement in a fraudulent cross-border scheme exceeding €12 million. Issues include dual criminality and Articles 5&6 ECHR, alleging reversal of the burden of proof and lack of impartial tribunal.
• Polish Judicial Authority v SC – represented SC. History of significant trauma, necessitating evidence from a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
• Government of USA v RA – represented RA, sought for prosecution for alleged involvement in wire fraud. Issues raised included dual criminality, Article 3 ECHR (prison conditions in Alabama and risk of ill-treatment in respect of consequential immigration matters).
• Beraru v Romanian Judicial Authority [2025] EWHC 2770 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. Issues raised included dual criminality and proportionality (the effect of Article 9 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ETS No. 182) on whether this permitted remote attendance at trial for the purpose of establishing that less coercive measures existed).
• Bazegurore v Belgian Judicial Authority [2025] EWHC 1721 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. MB sought to serve a sentence imposed for people smuggling. He had served a sentence for associated offending prosecuted in this jurisdiction. Issue of double jeopardy were dismissed at permission stage. Article 8 EHCR remained due to the care needs of the MB’s severely autistic child, including consideration of the UK sentence imposed for associated offending.
• BCM v Romanian Judicial Authority [2025] EWHC 600 (Admin), [2025] EWHC 1890 (Admin), [2025] EWHC 3309 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. Issues included deliberate absence, abuse of process following reissue, and reopening proceedings following a significant mental health crisis of BCM’s partner following the dismissal of the appeal and the consequent impact on their son.
• Hungarian Judicial Authority v AB and TE [2023] – [2025] EWHC 1080 (Admin) –representing the judicial authorities in multi-handed, complex proceedings. Issues included whether issuing judicial authorities were ‘judicial authorities’ pursuant to s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (judicial independence), extraneous considerations (Roma ethnicity), attendance at trial and right to retrial, Article 3 ECHR (prison conditions), Article 8 ECHR, and oppression due to mental health.
• Polish Judicial Authority v DD – represented DD, arguing that the requirements under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 (presence at trial) applied to a hearing that activated DD’s suspended sentence following CJEU jurisprudence on the issue.
• Government of USA v Nicholls [2024] EWHC 3071 (Admin) – led junior representing the Government, responding to the contention that extradition would breach Article 3 ECHR due to risk of sentence of life without parole.
• Syed v Government of Switzerland [2024] EWHC 1959 (Admin) – led junior representing the Government. Mr Syed was wanted for prosecution in respect of a fraud valued at CHF 28.6 million. Issues included double jeopardy arising from a procedure occurring in Bahrain in respect of the same conduct, and abuse of process.
• Barkauskas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. The requested person argued that extradition would result in a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR due to inter-prisoner violence.
• Urbonas & ors v Lithuanian Judicial Authorities [2024] EWHC 33 (Admin) – led junior representing the judicial authorities. Lead case on Lithuanian prison conditions.
• Dobrowolski v Polish Judicial Authority [2023] EWHC 763 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. The court considered the extent to which early release should be taken into account in the Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise.
• Hojden v Polish Judicial Authority [2022] EWHC 2725 (Admin) – representing the judicial authority. Consideration of immigration-related arguments in Article 8 balance post-Brexit.
• Nemeth & Ors v Hungary [2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin); [2022] EWHC 224 (Admin); [2022] EWHC 273 (Admin); [2022] EWHC 1024 (Admin); [2022] EWHC 2032 (Admin) – led junior representing the judicial authorities. Issues included whether issuing judicial authorities were ‘judicial authorities’ pursuant to s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (judicial independence), extraneous considerations (Roma ethnicity), Article 3 ECHR (including treatment of Roma in prison).
• Badea v Romanian Judicial Authority [2022] Q.B. 828, [2022] 3 W.L.R. 536, [2022] EWHC 1025 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. Consideration of whether TaCA required a distinct proportionality assessment in conviction cases.
• Marosan v Romanian Judicial Authority [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1759; [2021] EWHC 3098 (Admin) – represented the judicial authority. Considering the correct approach to time spent on remand in respect of a domestic offence while also detained in extradition proceedings, applying Article 26 of the Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA).
• Government of the Kingdom of Thailand v NR [2021] – led junior representing the Government of Thailand. Issues included prima facie case, dual criminality and Article 3 ECHR.
• Government of the Republic of Turkey v Tanis [2021] EWHC 1675 (Admin) – led junior representing the Government. RP sought in respect of alleged terrorist offences (PKK). Issues included extraneous considerations (Kurdish ethnicity and terror charges would result in prejudice at trial), Article 3 ECHR (life sentence without review and prison conditions including solitary confinement) and Article 6 ECHR.
• Saptelei v Romanian Judicial Authority [2021] EWHC 506 (Admin) – led junior representing the judicial authority. Consideration of whether, in cases where a person is entitled to a retrial, a proportionality exercise akin to s.21A(1)(b) should be conducted.
• XX [2018] – advising on whether there existed a basis to apply to remove a red notice on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Public Law

• R (on the application of EBA) v SSD & SSHD [2026] EWHC 1131 (Admin) – led junior in claim for judicial review against the decision to close the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy without notice, brought by the family of deceased Triple.
• MMQ v SSJ, NCA, CPS, SSHD – led junior representing the SSHD. Advising and drafting pleadings in response to Article 5&8 ECHR claim against multiple Government departments, relating to time in detention following consent to extradition.
• AH v SSHD (Upper Tribunal) – represented SSHD in a claim for judicial review, in respect of a deportation decision following conviction for producing cannabis during a period when a conclusive grounds decision found the claimant to be a victim of trafficking. AH claimed that deportation contravened the non-punishment principle under Article 46 ECAT.
• R (on the application of BLV v SSHD) [2026] A.C.D. 25, [2025] EWHC 2516 (Admin) – judicial review in respect of the adequacy of asylum support for deaf and blind asylum seeker.
• MA & Ors v SSHD (Upper Tribunal) – advising and representing SSHD in relation to multiple claims lodged by litigants in person using death certificates alongside forged documents to obtain visit visas.
• XM v FCDO – representing FCDO at Pre-Action stage, in respect of a proposed challenge to the level of consular assistance provided to a dual national whose husband died abroad.

Regulatory

Hannah has experience acting for individuals facing regulatory proceedings before healthcare regulatory bodies. She has also advised a company on their obligations in light of suspected insider dealing.

• HCPC v XY – registrant faced multiple allegations, some amounting to dishonest conduct. Successfully argued that there was no case to answer in respect of 2 allegations and the facts were only found proved in respect of 1 remaining allegation. Successfully argued that the factual basis of the remaining allegation did not amount to misconduct.
• HCPC v CM – registrant faced allegations of dishonesty, arising from a failure to register with her regulator and, when re-registering, incorrectly declaring the date on which she last practised. Successfully argued that there had been no dishonesty. No finding of misconduct in relation to the remaining, accepted allegations.
• NMC v CH – registrant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the breath, having driven to work as a nurse while under the influence of alcohol and proceeding to commence her duties. A 6-month Suspension Order was imposed.

Other Experience

In 2024, Hannah was seconded as an Assistant Legal Advisor within the Foreign Relations Team at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. She provided advice on policy and litigation strategy, working with and alongside multiple Government departments.

Hannah was seconded to the Business Crime Department of Peters and Peters Solicitors LLP in 2017, and again in 2018-2019. Hannah worked closely with Partners and Associates on a wide range of cases. Hannah’s time was predominantly spent working on an internal investigation on behalf of a large, multinational corporation. This involved researching and reporting on specific issues of law and regulation to assist in advising the client, conducting a large-scale document review, and assisting with the application of factual findings to issues arising during the course of the investigation.

In 2014, Hannah travelled to Colombia as part of an international delegation. She met with the victims of human rights violations and the organisations seeking to assist and protect those victims. The delegation addressed the Colombian authorities and the Colombian Government on the difficulties facing those who seek to protect human rights in Colombia.

Education and Awards

Northumbria University

M Law (exempting) (Upper Second Class Honours) (2014)

BPTC (Very Competent) (2014)

The Alan Davenport Memorial Prize for the best performance in Civil Liberties (2014).

The Northumbria Law School Prize for best performance by a BPTC Exempting student in

Advocacy (Examination in Chief)

Memberships

• DELF (Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum) – Treasurer
• Extradition Lawyers Association
• ALBA
• The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple