MEET:
James Stansfeld
"An excellent and tenacious advocate. Incredibly talented and bright. Meticulous in his preparation. He has a superb intellect."
Legal 500 2021
James has a broad practice encompassing extradition, crime, public and administrative law, human rights, immigration, actions against the police, and international criminal and public law. He is recognised as a leading junior in both extradition and public law. James acts for individuals, Governments, claimants and respondents. He brings that extensive and varied experience to bear on each case in which he is instructed. He is noted for his formidable advocacy and his ability to quickly grasp and develop technical points of law.
James is one of the leading juniors in extradition and is frequently instructed in some of the most complex and high-profile cases. James has significant experience in Part 2 requests and has represented individuals sought by countries including the Russian Federation, Falkland Islands, India, United States, Turkey and the Ukraine. He is widely recognised for his in-depth knowledge of extradition and his ability to develop technical challenges to extradition requests, as well as securing notable successes in article 8 challenges and challenges based on delay. He has appeared in two cases before the Supreme Court and has often appeared alone against leading counsel in the Divisional Court and is acting in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include:
- India v Sanjay Bhandari (Representing Mr Bhandari in two extensive extradition requests from India)
- USA v Oleg Tinkov (Successfully represented Mr Oleg Tinkov in resisting a request for extradition from the United States)
- Matthews v Romania (Application 19124/21) (ECtHR article 3 challenge to extradition from Romania to the United States)
- Latvia v K (Successfully acted for an ex-KGB spy in challenging his extradition to Latvia on political motivation, abuse of process and human rights grounds)
- India v Gill (Successfully acted for Mr Gill in resisting extradition to India, there being no prima facie case)
- DF v Germany [2022] EWHC 2224 (Admin) (Successful challenge on article 8 grounds against extradition for an allegation of GBH)
- Karaqi v Greece [2020] EWHC 2650 (Admin) (Successful challenge under s.14 and article 8 grounds against extradition to serve 11 years from a 13 year sentence)
- Krupeckiene v Lithuania [2019] EWHC 569 (Challenge to the Public Prosecutor’s status as a judicial authority)
- Alexander v France [2018] Q.B. 408 (Seminal case on the validity of European arrest warrants)
- Ristea v Italy [2018] EWHC 1876 (Double jeopardy and abuse of process)
- Mohammed v Portugal (No.1) & (No.2) [2018] EWHC 225 (Admin) & [2017] EWHC 3237 (Admin) (First successful challenge to extradition to Portugal on the grounds of prison conditions)
- Goluchowski & Sas v Poland [2016] 1 WLR 2665 (Supreme Court – Validity of EAWs)
- Bucnys & Ors v Ministries of Justice of Lithuania & Estonia [2013] 3 WLR 1485 (Supreme Court – Definition of judicial authority)
James is recognised by Chambers and Partners as a leading junior in public and administrative law. He has a broad public law practice within the national security, criminal and immigration spheres. James acts for both claimants and the Government and is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of counsel. James acts in judicial review proceedings, TPIM proceedings and was instructed as junior in the first ever Temporary Exclusion Order. He has appeared in the Supreme Court and regularly appears in the Court of Appeal. With a criminal background and significant experience in human rights law James is always available to advise on challenges to decisions by public bodies. His recent, current and notable cases include:
- R (ML) v SSHD (Acting for a high profile individual in their challenge to the Secretary of States refusal to grant entry clearance as a consequence of politically motivated criminal convictions)
- R (Hill) v SSJ (Responding to a challenge to refuse a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions)
- R (E3, N3 & ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 26 and [2022] EWHC 1133 (Admin) (Acting for the SSHD on the question of whether the withdrawal of a deprivation decision has prospective or retrospective effect)
- R (Reprieve) v Prime Minister [2022] QB 447 (Acted for the Prime Minister in this challenge to the decision not to hold a public inquiry into allegations that the UK Government had been complicit in the unlawful detention and mistreatment of individuals post 9/11)
- R (DM) v SSHD (Acted for Amnesty International in their application to intervene in a challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy on child refugees)
- R (AB) v Metropolitan Police Service & ACRO Criminal Records Office (Acted for the Claimant in a challenge not to delete the record of his arrest from the PNC)
- E3 & N3 v SSHD [2020] 1 WLR 1098 (Acted for the SSHD in this appeal concerning the burden of proof in statelessness challenges in deprivation cases)
- Advice to a charity on the lawfulness of the Home Office Support for Migrants Victim Scheme, Pilot Project
- Belhaj v DPP [2018] 3 WLR 435: (First decision by the Supreme Court on the application of closed material procedures under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to judicial review challenges to decisions not to prosecute.)
- SSHD v LG, IM & JM [2017] EWHC 1529 (Admin) (Three TPIM proceedings brought against members of Al-Muhajiroun)
- SSHD v EB [2016] EWHC 1970: (Section 9 review and section 16 appeal against a TPIM)
James is instructed for claimants in several challenges to the lawfulness of arrest and detention. James has also advised and acted in judicial review claims against the police and the retention of data on police records. With his criminal and public law experience James is well placed to advise and act for individuals in challenges to search warrants, charging and prosecution decisions. Ongoing and recent cases include:
- R (AB) v Metropolitan Police Service & ACRO Criminal Records Office (Acted for the Claimant in a challenge not to delete the record of his arrest from the PNC).
- T v Metropolitan Police Service (Successful claim against the police for unlawful arrest and detention)
- R (Hill) v SSJ (Responding to a challenge to refuse a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions)
- C v Cleveland Police (Acting for the claimant in his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and detention)
- D v Metropolitan Police Service (Acting for the claimant in his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and detention)
- Undercover Policing Inquiry (James acts for a Government Department in this Inquiry)
James’ practice and experience in extradition and criminal law ensures he is well placed to advise and assist clients with cross-border criminal issues. He advises and acts for individuals challenging Interpol notices.
He also has experience of pursuing applications before the European Court of Human Rights. He is presently acting as junior to Ben Cooper KC in Matthews v Romania (Application 19124/21) in his challenge to extradition to the United States on article 3 grounds.
James has considerable experience appearing before the magistrates’ and the Crown Court and has acted alone in the Court of Appeal. He has been commended for his jury advocacy and his Crown Court trials include conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, sexual offences, and ABH.
James has experience acting for defendants in cash forfeiture proceedings and confiscation proceedings in both the criminal and civil spheres.
SC Nicktrans SRL v Director of Border Revenue [2015] UKFTT 177 (Successful appeal against forfeiture of a coach by HMRC)
The Commissioner v Walsh James (Successfully challenge to an to forfeit £35,000 of Premium Bonds seized under s.294 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002)
Attorney General’s Panel A: 2023 –
Attorney General’s Panel B: 2020–2023
Attorney General’s Panel C: 2014-2019
Crown Prosecution Service Specialist Panel – Extradition Grade 4
Defence Extradition Lawyer’s Forum (Former Chair)
Human Right’s Lawyer’s Association
Criminal Bar Association
Fraud Lawyers Association
James is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, James needs to collect and hold personal data. This includes his client’s personal data and the personal data of others who feature in the matter upon which he is instructed. To read James’ privacy notice in full, please see here.
"James is able to digest high volumes of information quickly and communicate his advice clearly and concisely, with real insight."
"A brilliant junior who is a welcome addition to any team. He has an excellent command of the law."
"James Stansfeld has forensic knowledge of extradition law." "James Stansfeld is a very good strategic operator, who provides extremely good skeleton arguments, which are clear, concise and focused." "He is incredibly hard-working and always on top of everything. Stansfeld has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law."
"A go-to extradition junior. Tactical and very easy going. His written work is exceptional and can change the course of a case."
"He is a very reliable lawyer with a fantastic manner. Completely unflappable. He handles cross-examinations masterfully." "James is an excellent junior, who is hard-working and incredibly bright, and has a really forceful intellect."
"James knows the law of extradition back to front. He is incredibly imaginative and skilled in his ability to argue complex cases." "A very smart and passionate advocate."
"A very responsive junior who thinks strategically and has great knowledge of case law."
"A brilliant extradition specialist. Really rolls up his sleeves and gets stuck into a case. Judges rightly trust his judgement. Wins cases through sheer hard work and acquired specialist knowledge."
"His technical astuteness and advocacy are amongst the best."
"An excellent and tenacious advocate. Incredibly talented and bright. Meticulous in his preparation. He has a superb intellect."
"Combines technical astuteness with strong advocacy, and is excellent at handling clients, proving very committed to them."
"A lawyer with a great understanding of the law, who is very strong on his feet."
"Incredibly talented and bright, he is meticulous in his preparation."
"A talented and tenacious advocate."
"Displays great technical ability when deciphering warrants and is good at analysing criminal judgments from other jurisdictions."
"He is always willing to look at his cases in an inventive way and he’s good at drilling through the technical detail."
"A real star of the extradition Bar – he is always on top of the paperwork."
"He has a real talent for identifying and developing groundbreaking legal points."
"Praised by sources for his advocacy skills."
"Very, very bright and academically very impressive."
"He has great drafting skills, is extremely good at the technical aspects of the law, and is good at communicating complex problems in a very clear way."
MAIN AREAS OF PRACTICE:
- Civil Liberties and Human Rights
- Commercial Public Law
- Crime
- Extradition and Mutual Assistance
- Fraud and Financial Crime
- Health and Social Care (including welfare benefits)
- Immigration, Asylum and Free Movement
- Investigatory Powers
- Police, Inquests and Prison
- Private International Law
- Proceeds of Crime and Asset Forfeiture
- Public International Law
- Public Law
- Sanctions
- Serious Crime (including terrorism) and Trial Advocacy
+44 (0)20 7404 3447
"An excellent and tenacious advocate. Incredibly talented and bright. Meticulous in his preparation. He has a superb intellect."
Legal 500 2021
MAIN AREAS OF PRACTICE
- Crime
- Extradition and Mutual Assistance
- Fraud and Financial Crime
- Investigatory Powers
- Proceeds of Crime and Asset Forfeiture
- Sanctions
- Serious Crime (including terrorism) and Trial Advocacy
- Civil Liberties and Human Rights
- Immigration, Asylum and Free Movement
- Public Law
- Police, Inquests and Prison
- Health and Social Care (including welfare benefits)
- Commercial Public Law
- Private International Law
- Public International Law
James Stansfeld
Contact James: jamesstansfeld@matrixlaw.co.uk | +44 (0)20 7404 3447
Contact James's Practice Team (Team T): TeamT@matrixlaw.co.uk
James has a broad practice encompassing extradition, crime, public and administrative law, human rights, immigration, actions against the police, and international criminal and public law. He is recognised as a leading junior in both extradition and public law. James acts for individuals, Governments, claimants and respondents. He brings that extensive and varied experience to bear on each case in which he is instructed. He is noted for his formidable advocacy and his ability to quickly grasp and develop technical points of law.
Extradition Law
James is one of the leading juniors in extradition and is frequently instructed in some of the most complex and high-profile cases. James has significant experience in Part 2 requests and has represented individuals sought by countries including the Russian Federation, Falkland Islands, India, United States, Turkey and the Ukraine. He is widely recognised for his in-depth knowledge of extradition and his ability to develop technical challenges to extradition requests, as well as securing notable successes in article 8 challenges and challenges based on delay. He has appeared in two cases before the Supreme Court and has often appeared alone against leading counsel in the Divisional Court and is acting in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include:
- India v Sanjay Bhandari (Representing Mr Bhandari in two extensive extradition requests from India)
- USA v Oleg Tinkov (Successfully represented Mr Oleg Tinkov in resisting a request for extradition from the United States)
- Matthews v Romania (Application 19124/21) (ECtHR article 3 challenge to extradition from Romania to the United States)
- Latvia v K (Successfully acted for an ex-KGB spy in challenging his extradition to Latvia on political motivation, abuse of process and human rights grounds)
- India v Gill (Successfully acted for Mr Gill in resisting extradition to India, there being no prima facie case)
- DF v Germany [2022] EWHC 2224 (Admin) (Successful challenge on article 8 grounds against extradition for an allegation of GBH)
- Karaqi v Greece [2020] EWHC 2650 (Admin) (Successful challenge under s.14 and article 8 grounds against extradition to serve 11 years from a 13 year sentence)
- Krupeckiene v Lithuania [2019] EWHC 569 (Challenge to the Public Prosecutor’s status as a judicial authority)
- Alexander v France [2018] Q.B. 408 (Seminal case on the validity of European arrest warrants)
- Ristea v Italy [2018] EWHC 1876 (Double jeopardy and abuse of process)
- Mohammed v Portugal (No.1) & (No.2) [2018] EWHC 225 (Admin) & [2017] EWHC 3237 (Admin) (First successful challenge to extradition to Portugal on the grounds of prison conditions)
- Goluchowski & Sas v Poland [2016] 1 WLR 2665 (Supreme Court – Validity of EAWs)
- Bucnys & Ors v Ministries of Justice of Lithuania & Estonia [2013] 3 WLR 1485 (Supreme Court – Definition of judicial authority)
Public Law
James is recognised by Chambers and Partners as a leading junior in public and administrative law. He has a broad public law practice within the national security, criminal and immigration spheres. James acts for both claimants and the Government and is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of counsel. James acts in judicial review proceedings, TPIM proceedings and was instructed as junior in the first ever Temporary Exclusion Order. He has appeared in the Supreme Court and regularly appears in the Court of Appeal. With a criminal background and significant experience in human rights law James is always available to advise on challenges to decisions by public bodies. His recent, current and notable cases include:
- R (ML) v SSHD (Acting for a high profile individual in their challenge to the Secretary of States refusal to grant entry clearance as a consequence of politically motivated criminal convictions)
- R (Hill) v SSJ (Responding to a challenge to refuse a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions)
- R (E3, N3 & ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 26 and [2022] EWHC 1133 (Admin) (Acting for the SSHD on the question of whether the withdrawal of a deprivation decision has prospective or retrospective effect)
- R (Reprieve) v Prime Minister [2022] QB 447 (Acted for the Prime Minister in this challenge to the decision not to hold a public inquiry into allegations that the UK Government had been complicit in the unlawful detention and mistreatment of individuals post 9/11)
- R (DM) v SSHD (Acted for Amnesty International in their application to intervene in a challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy on child refugees)
- R (AB) v Metropolitan Police Service & ACRO Criminal Records Office (Acted for the Claimant in a challenge not to delete the record of his arrest from the PNC)
- E3 & N3 v SSHD [2020] 1 WLR 1098 (Acted for the SSHD in this appeal concerning the burden of proof in statelessness challenges in deprivation cases)
- Advice to a charity on the lawfulness of the Home Office Support for Migrants Victim Scheme, Pilot Project
- Belhaj v DPP [2018] 3 WLR 435: (First decision by the Supreme Court on the application of closed material procedures under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to judicial review challenges to decisions not to prosecute.)
- SSHD v LG, IM & JM [2017] EWHC 1529 (Admin) (Three TPIM proceedings brought against members of Al-Muhajiroun)
- SSHD v EB [2016] EWHC 1970: (Section 9 review and section 16 appeal against a TPIM)
Police, Inquests and Prison
James is instructed for claimants in several challenges to the lawfulness of arrest and detention. James has also advised and acted in judicial review claims against the police and the retention of data on police records. With his criminal and public law experience James is well placed to advise and act for individuals in challenges to search warrants, charging and prosecution decisions. Ongoing and recent cases include:
- R (AB) v Metropolitan Police Service & ACRO Criminal Records Office (Acted for the Claimant in a challenge not to delete the record of his arrest from the PNC).
- T v Metropolitan Police Service (Successful claim against the police for unlawful arrest and detention)
- R (Hill) v SSJ (Responding to a challenge to refuse a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions)
- C v Cleveland Police (Acting for the claimant in his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and detention)
- D v Metropolitan Police Service (Acting for the claimant in his challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and detention)
- Undercover Policing Inquiry (James acts for a Government Department in this Inquiry)
International Human Rights And Criminal Law
James’ practice and experience in extradition and criminal law ensures he is well placed to advise and assist clients with cross-border criminal issues. He advises and acts for individuals challenging Interpol notices.
He also has experience of pursuing applications before the European Court of Human Rights. He is presently acting as junior to Ben Cooper KC in Matthews v Romania (Application 19124/21) in his challenge to extradition to the United States on article 3 grounds.
Criminal Law
James has considerable experience appearing before the magistrates’ and the Crown Court and has acted alone in the Court of Appeal. He has been commended for his jury advocacy and his Crown Court trials include conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, sexual offences, and ABH.
Proceeds Of Crime And Asset Forfeiture
James has experience acting for defendants in cash forfeiture proceedings and confiscation proceedings in both the criminal and civil spheres.
SC Nicktrans SRL v Director of Border Revenue [2015] UKFTT 177 (Successful appeal against forfeiture of a coach by HMRC)
The Commissioner v Walsh James (Successfully challenge to an to forfeit £35,000 of Premium Bonds seized under s.294 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002)
Appointments
Attorney General’s Panel A: 2023 –
Attorney General’s Panel B: 2020–2023
Attorney General’s Panel C: 2014-2019
Crown Prosecution Service Specialist Panel – Extradition Grade 4
Professional Memberships
Defence Extradition Lawyer’s Forum (Former Chair)
Human Right’s Lawyer’s Association
Criminal Bar Association
Fraud Lawyers Association
James's Privacy Notice
James is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, James needs to collect and hold personal data. This includes his client’s personal data and the personal data of others who feature in the matter upon which he is instructed. To read James’ privacy notice in full, please see here.
DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS
"James is able to digest high volumes of information quickly and communicate his advice clearly and concisely, with real insight."
"A brilliant junior who is a welcome addition to any team. He has an excellent command of the law."
"James Stansfeld has forensic knowledge of extradition law." "James Stansfeld is a very good strategic operator, who provides extremely good skeleton arguments, which are clear, concise and focused." "He is incredibly hard-working and always on top of everything. Stansfeld has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law."
"A go-to extradition junior. Tactical and very easy going. His written work is exceptional and can change the course of a case."
"He is a very reliable lawyer with a fantastic manner. Completely unflappable. He handles cross-examinations masterfully." "James is an excellent junior, who is hard-working and incredibly bright, and has a really forceful intellect."
"James knows the law of extradition back to front. He is incredibly imaginative and skilled in his ability to argue complex cases." "A very smart and passionate advocate."
"A very responsive junior who thinks strategically and has great knowledge of case law."
"A brilliant extradition specialist. Really rolls up his sleeves and gets stuck into a case. Judges rightly trust his judgement. Wins cases through sheer hard work and acquired specialist knowledge."
"His technical astuteness and advocacy are amongst the best."
"An excellent and tenacious advocate. Incredibly talented and bright. Meticulous in his preparation. He has a superb intellect."
"Combines technical astuteness with strong advocacy, and is excellent at handling clients, proving very committed to them."
"A lawyer with a great understanding of the law, who is very strong on his feet."
"Incredibly talented and bright, he is meticulous in his preparation."
"A talented and tenacious advocate."
"Displays great technical ability when deciphering warrants and is good at analysing criminal judgments from other jurisdictions."
"He is always willing to look at his cases in an inventive way and he’s good at drilling through the technical detail."
"A real star of the extradition Bar – he is always on top of the paperwork."
"He has a real talent for identifying and developing groundbreaking legal points."
"Praised by sources for his advocacy skills."
"Very, very bright and academically very impressive."
"He has great drafting skills, is extremely good at the technical aspects of the law, and is good at communicating complex problems in a very clear way."