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 across criminal, extradition and public law, with his established expertise at the intersection of the criminal and civil forums. With a criminal trial background and with extensive experience of proceedings before the higher courts in extradition and public law, James acts in, and advises on, proceedings that engage these complex issues across jurisdictions.

He represents individuals in public law and civil proceedings, including challenging prosecution decisions and the exercise of police powers both by way of judicial review and civil proceedings. He frequently acts in some of the most high profile and complex extradition requests, and he advises on challenges to the use of sanctions, mutual legal assistance and Interpol Notices.

James is recognised as a leading junior in both extradition and public law and is noted for his formidable advocacy and his ability to quickly grasp and develop technical points of law.

Fraud and Financial Crime

James has extensive experience in the issues that arise in fraud and financial crime cases.  His current and recent instructions involve advising individuals and corporations on responding to criminal investigations and the legality of production orders either obtained domestically, or pursuant to mutual legal assistance requests. His recent cases include:

• Chief Office of the States of Jersey Police v A Ltd & XY: Represents a States of Jersey company, A Ltd, in responding to an application for a production order concerning investigations into money laundering and sanctions evasion.
• Moldova v Veaceslav Platon: Representing Mr Platon in challenging a politically motivated request for the alleged laundering of $20 billion, which involves a challenge on dual criminality grounds.
• Advised a bank on the legality of, and compliance with, production orders issued in respect of an investigation in the Netherlands into dividend withholding tax evasion.
• Advised a company in the States of Jersey on a judicial review challenge to the issuance of production orders pursuant to a request by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
• Advised an individual detained abroad on fair trial rights concerning participation in associated bankruptcy proceedings in England & Wales.
• R v Blandford – Represented Entain Plc in a successful challenge to the legality of a restitution order imposed on it, in light of the proceeds of crime having been spent in its casinos.
• India v Sanjay Bhandari [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin): Successfully represented Mr Bhandari in two extensive extradition requests from India, whose return was sought for prosecution for tax evasion and money laundering under the Indian Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
• USA v Oleg Tinkov: Successfully represented Mr Oleg Tinkov in resisting a request for extradition from the United States for tax evasion of an exit tax.

Extradition and Mutual Assistance

James is one of the leading juniors in extradition and a former Chair of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum.  He 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, Moldova, Turkey and 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 before the Supreme Court and has often appeared alone against leading counsel in the Divisional Court and acts in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. His recent cases include:

• Malta v Abdul Kader: Representing Mr Abdul Kader, known as one of the El Hiblu 4, in his challenge to extradition for prosecution for alleged hijacking of a ship by migrants to prevent and resist their return to torture in Libya.
• Albania v Mithan [2026] EWHC 956 (Admin): Representing Mr Mithan in his challenge to extradition. Following a successful appeal, the matter will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2027.
• Moldova v Veaceslav Platon: Representing Mr Platon in challenging a politically motivated request for the alleged laundering of $20 billion.
• India v Sanjay Bhandari [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin): Successfully represented Mr Bhandari in two extensive extradition requests from India, establishing a systemic issue with torture across police investigations in India)
• USA v Oleg Tinkov: Successfully represented Mr Oleg Tinkov in resisting a request for extradition from the United States for tax evasion.
• 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
• 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
• Alexander v France [2018] Q.B. 408: Seminal case on the validity of European arrest warrants.
• 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 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:

Claimant

• Represented Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in his successful judicial review challenge to the legality of search warrants obtained and executed by the Thames Valley Police.
• Advising and representing an individual in his claim before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal challenging the removal of his security clearance.
• Advising an individual in Gibraltar in an article 7 Constitutional claim for damages for the unlawful execution of search warrants.
• R (ML) v SSHD: Acted for a high profile individual in their challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant entry clearance as a consequence of a politically motivated criminal convictions.
• B & Ors v Metropolitan Police: Represented three former officers in applications under s 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the return of their unlawfully seized mobile phones.
• SSHD v West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner [2024] EWCA Civ 367: Successfully represented the WMPCC in the High Court and Court of Appeal in his challenge to the legality of a government consultation on abolishing the role.
• 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.
• Advice to a charity on the lawfulness of the Home Office Support for Migrants Victim Scheme, Pilot Project

Government

• H20 v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Representing the Secretary of State in this appeal against H20’s deprivation order and the decision to refuse her entry-clearance.
• Al-Libi v Home Office [2026] EWHC 1524: Represented the Government in proceedings concerning the propriety of the retrieval of material from a Special Advocate.
• Gardner Aerospace Holdings Ltd v Upton [2025] EWHC 2627: Represented the Government in the Chancery Division, responding to a third party disclosure order.
• R (E3, N3 & ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6 (Supreme Court): Acted for the SSHD on the question of whether the withdrawal of a deprivation decision has prospective or retrospective effect.
• B4 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 900: Appeal decision on the approach SIAC should take on the assessment of national security under s 2B of the SIAC Act 1997.
• R (Hill) v SSJ: Responded to a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s rejection of a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions.
• R (Ullah) v National Crime Agency [2023] EWHC 1140 & [2023] EWHC 371: Represented the Interested Parties in a judicial review of the National Crime Agency’s refusal to consent to the transfer of monies under Terrorism Act 2000.
• 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.
• 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 case.
• 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.

Proceeds Of Crime And Asset Forfeiture

James has extensive experience in advising on, and acting in, matters concerning the proceeds of crime, asset forfeiture and seizure.

• Chief Office of the States of Jersey Police v A Ltd & XY: Represents a Jersey company, A Ltd, in responding to an application for a production order concerning investigations into money laundering and sanctions evasion.
• R v Blandford – Represented Entain Plc in a successful challenge to the legality of a restitution order imposed on it, in light of the proceeds of crime having been spent in its casinos.
• SC Nicktrans SRL v Director of Border Revenue [2015] UKFTT 177: Successful appeal against forfeiture of a coach by HMRC.
• The Commissioner v Walsh: Successful challenge to the forfeiture of £35,000 of Premium Bonds seized under s.294 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

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:

• Represented Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in his successful judicial review challenge to the legality of search warrants obtained and executed by the Thames Valley Police.
• Advising an individual in Gibraltar on his claim for damages for the unlawful execution of search warrants.
• B & Ors v Metropolitan Police: Represented three former police officers in applications under s 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the return of their unlawfully seized mobile phones.
• 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: Responded to a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s rejection of a parole board recommendation to move the Claimant into open conditions.
• C v Cleveland Police: Successfully acted 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)

Sanctions, 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 frequently advises and acts for individuals who are at risk of arrest in extradition proceedings, challenging sanctions, mutual legal assistance and Interpol notices and he has advised on and acted in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

• Chief Office of the States of Jersey Police v A Ltd & XY: Represents a States of Jersey company, A Ltd, in responding to an application for a production order concerning investigations into money laundering and sanctions evasion.
• R v Corps & Ors: Represents Mr Corps in a multi-handed drugs conspiracy trial in Teeside, in which involves issues of double jeopardy arising out of a prosecution and conviction in France.
• Advised an individual on challenge to sanctions, which had the effect of restricting ability to access healthcare.
• Matthews v Romania (Application 19124/21) (ECtHR article 3 and 5 challenge to extradition from Romania to the United States.

Appointments

Attorney General’s Panel A – 2023

Attorney General’s Panel B – 2020

Attorney General’s Panel C – 2014-2019

Crown Prosecution Service Specialist Panel – Extradition Grade 4

Publications

James is a co-author of: Nicholls, Montgomery & Knowles on the Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance, Fourth Edition.

James is a contributor to: Ward & Blundell: National Security, Law Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Professional Memberships

Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum (Former Chair)

Human Rights Lawyers 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.

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS