Menu My portfolio: 0

Mark is an experienced criminal trial lawyer and one of the country’s leading international criminal law specialists.

  • Extradition, Mutual Legal Assistance and International Criminal Law

    Mark is recognised as one of the country’s foremost extradition lawyers. He is regularly instructed to advise and appear on behalf of individuals and foreign governments in proceedings in the United Kingdom and abroad. He was previously Chair of the Extradition Lawyers’ Association.

    His caseload has included ● Elgizouli v Secretary of State ● Spain v Rwandan intelligence chief, General Karenzi Karake ● Julian Assange ● South Africa v Shrien Dewani  ● the attempted Regicide of the King of Spain ● the Madrid train bombings ● the 9/11 attacks  ● the 2001 US anthrax bio-terrorism attacks ● the murder of Theo van Gogh ● the creation of the ‘Trojan Horse’ commercial espionage computer virus ● hacking into the Pentagon and Pearl Harbour and NASA computer networks ● the sale of decommissioned radioactive metals ● KGB espionage in the former Soviet bloc ● treason ● impairing the battle-readiness of the US Atlantic fleet ● defendants on the FBI’s “10 most wanted” list.

  • Mark’s reported Extradition and MLA cases- Supreme Court
    • R (Elgizouli) v SSHD [2020] 2 WLR 857

    Mutual legal assistance – provision of evidence to foreign criminal investigation – facilitation of death penalty – no duty to obtain assurances – prerogative powers – power to develop the common law in line with ECHR – data protection – transfer of personal data to third countries.

    • Konecny v District Court in Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic [2019] 1 WLR 1586

    Extradition – convicted in absence but having unqualified right to retrial if extradited – whether extradition to be sought as accused or convicted person – whether ‘passage of time’ bar to be determined by reference to passage of time since commission of offences or conviction

    • Goluchowski & Sas v District Court in Elblag, Poland [2016] 1 WLR 2665

    Extradition – validity – whether details of arrest warrants or judicial decisions issued to secure surrender to custody to enforce sentence required to be included in EAW – meaning of “warrant” – scope of application of s.2(6)(c) – whether extraneous materials available to defence or prosecution to show or cure invalidity – EU principle of conforming interpretation now applicable to extradition proceedings.

    • Bucnys & Sakalis v MoJ, Lithuania; Lavrov v MoJ, Estonia [2014] AC 480

    European arrest warrants – status of designation under Article 6(3) Framework Decision – status of SOCA certification – section 2(7) – meaning of “arrest warrant” in section 2(7) – state practice – Article 31(3) Vienna Convention – not applicable to secondary EU legislation – meaning of judicial authority – Ministries of Justice.

    • R (HH & PH) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338

    Extradition of primary carer or both parents of dependent children – conflicting public interests – best interests of children – UNCRC – Charter of Fundamental Rights – modification of Norris principles – correct approach to Article 8 ECHR – appropriate procedure to be adopted in Article 8 cases.

    • Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] 2 AC 471

    European Arrest Warrants – meaning of judicial authority – public prosecutors – Article 5.1(c) ECHR – status of instruments enacted under Title VI TEU in English law – status of Article 34 TEU / Pupino obligation of conforming interpretation in English law – European Communities Act 1972 – European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 – Lisbon treaty – Protocol 36 – status of unincorporated treaties – proportionality.

    • Gomes & Goodyer v Government of Trinidad & Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038, House of Lords

    Extradition – impact of deliberate flight from justice on passage of time.

    • Caldarelli v Court of Naples [2008] 1 WLR 1724, House of Lords

    Extradition – contumacious convictions.

    • McKinnon v Government of the United States of America [2008] 1 WLR 1739, House of Lords

    Extradition – abuse of process – hacking into the Pentagon, Pearl Harbour and NASA computer networks.

    • Dabas v High Court of Justice Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31, House of Lords

    Extradition – Madrid train bombings – European Arrest warrant – validity – Framework Decision – construction – duty of national courts – Article 34 EU

  • Mark’s reported Extradition and MLA cases- European Court of Human Rights
    • Woolley v United Kingdom (2013) 56 EHRR 15, ECtHR

    Extradition – violation of the international law rule of specialty capable of breaching Article 5.1 ECHR – default term of imprisonment made pursuant to a confiscation order – not involving the bringing of a new criminal charge.

    • Harkins & Edwards v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 19, ECtHR

    Extradition – Article 3 ECHR – sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole – modification of Soering principles – grossly disproportionate sentences.

     

  • Mark’s reported Extradition and MLA cases- Divisional Court
    • Chawla v Government of India [2020] 1 WLR 1609

    Extradition – powers of judge at extradition hearing following remittal by the High Court – no subsequent right of appeal against remitted decision – appropriate mechanism is application to reopen original High Court decision.

    • Jane v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2019] 4 WLR 95

    Extradition – post-surrender time limits – administrative error – EU law compatibility of UK case law concerning reasonable cause – whether habeas corpus limited to errors on the face of the order

    • Varga v Romania [2019] ACD 63

    Extradition – prison conditions – scope of required inquiry – approach to assurances – approach to fresh evidence on appeal

    • Shmatko v Russian Federation [2019] ACD 31

    Extradition – Russian assurances – whether reliable – non-disclosure

    • Ejinyere v USA [2019] ACD 5

    Extradition – Forum – interaction with mental health grounds

    • Balasz v Crown Prosecution Service [2019] ACD 1

    Extradition – expiry of surrender time limits – whether statutory right to apply to discharge under s36(8) capable of being circumvented by ex parte application for extension of time under s.36(3)(b)

    • Scott v USA [2019] 1 WLR 774

    Extradition – forum – relevance of likelihood of no UK prosecution in the event of extradition being refused

    • Lis v Poland [2018] ACD 141

    Extradition – systemic breakdown in the rule of law and judicial independence in the requesting state – effect on extraditions to Poland

    • Fuzesi v Hungary [2018] ACD 99

    Extradition – prison conditions – onus on state with systemic problems to evidence meaningful change – continued requirement for assurances

    • Imre v Hungary [2018] ACD 36

    Extradition – convictions in absentia – accusation warrant continued to be valid notwithstanding conviction – pending appellate re-examination of facts.

    • Bobbe v Poland [2018] ACD 11

    Extradition – obligations owed by transferring states to persons unfit to plea.

    • Kortas v Poland [2017] ACD 88

    Extradition – partial surrender – mechanism in place in Poland to give effect to specialty.

    • Auzins (No.2) v Prosecutor General’s office, Republic of Latvia [2017] 1 WLR 2981

    Extradition – time for surrender – whether domestic charge disposed of – outstanding appeal against conviction.

    • Sulaiman v Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 111

    Extradition – money laundering – extraterritorial jurisdiction.

    • Arranz v Spain (No. 4) [2017] ACD 12

    Extradition – abuse of process – defendant a refugee fleeing persecution from Spain – Refugee Convention, Article 31 – immunity from prosecution – no foreign application – no defence to extradition.

    • Puceviciene v Lithuanian judicial authority [2016] 1 WLR 4937

    Extradition – guideline authority on s12A bar – decision to charge and try – whether mutual legal assistance relevant – previous case law wrongly decided.

    • Auzins v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia [2016] 4 WLR 75

    Extradition – previous discharge on same EAW in Scotland – res Judicata – issue estoppel – do not apply to extradition proceedings.

    • Agardi v Hungary [2016] 1 WLR 3009

    EU law – extradition – service of notice of appeal out of time – application to extend time – available only to UK nationals – Pomiechowski – whether rule breaches Article 6 ECHR – extradition does not determine any civil right or criminal charge – whether rule violates Article 14 ECHR – whether rule breaches EU law – Article 18 TFEU – discrimination – appeal rights not derived from EU law – Articles 47 & 51 EU Charter – status in Title VI TEU criminal extradition proceedings – Assange – effects of Lisbon amendments – Protocol 36.

    • United States v Sarao [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 339, Magistrates’ Court

    Extradition – the “Flash Crash” – dual criminality – fraud by false representation – market manipulation – misleading impressions – misleading statements.

    • Atraskevic v Lithuania [2016] 1 WLR 2762

    Extradition – general guidance on application of the bar to extradition under s.19B – forum.

    • Florea v Judicial Authority Carei Courthouse, Satu Mare County, Romania [2015] 1 WLR 1953

    Extradition – Article 3 ECHR – Romanian prison conditions – overcrowding – whether Strasbourg case law mandates inflexible minimum required space – diplomatic assurances.

    • Kandola v Germany; Droma v Germany; Ijaz v Italy [2015] 1 WLR 5097

    Extradition – guidance on application of the bar to extradition under s.12A – absence of “prosecution decision” in requesting state to charge or try – requesting state not demonstrating that sole reason for absence of decision was absence of requested person from that state.

    • Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2015] 1 WLR 3929

    Extradition – general guidance on application of the bar to extradition under s.21A – proportionality.

    • Neteczca v Governor of Holloway Prison [2015] 1 WLR 1337

    Extradition – habeas corpus – defendant not surrendered within 10 day period after extradition ordered – no reasonable cause for delay – defence application for discharge under s.36(8) circumvented by CPS ex parte application to High Court for extension of period under s.36(3)(b) – not permissible – extension not possible after period expired – previous contrary authority wrongly decided – also arguable that Act does not permit repeat applications for extension.

    • Badre v Court of Florence, Italy [2014] ACD 93

    Extradition – dual criminality – breach of Payment Services Directive – Directive transposed differently in UK – dual criminality not made out on mere basis of failure to comply with national implementing legislation – breach of other Directives not charged in the Requesting State legally irrelevant to dual criminality enquiry – Article 3 ECHR – Italian prison conditions – overcrowding systemic – presumption of Convention compliance displaced – quality of diplomatic assurance.

    • Dewani v Government of the Republic of South Africa [2014] 1 WLR 3220

    Extradition – defendant currently unfit to plead and might remain so – whether defendant accused and whether extradition made for the purpose of being prosecuted – extradition unjust or oppressive where risk of indefinite preventative detention in the requesting state.

    • Edwards v Government of the United States of America [2014] 1 WLR 1532

    Extradition – fitness to plead – conflicting evidence – appropriate forum for resolution – application of principles under 1989 Act to different statutory regime under 2003 Act.

    • Arranz v Spain [2013] ACD 324

    Extradition – Article 7 ECHR – after remission earned, Spanish law changed – applied retroactively to defendant – release date recalculated and extended by 5 years – EAW issued to serve additional 5 years – UK court not required to follow ECtHR decision pending appeal to Grand Chamber – flagrancy test applies to Article 7 in extradition context – no flagrant violation to detain person pending outcome of Grand Chamber proceedings – no different result from EU Charter – CJEU decisions concerning the Framework Decision not binding – 2003 Act concerned with the ECHR not Charter.

    • Stopyra v District Court of Lublin [2013] 1 All ER 187

    Extradition Act – Part 1 – time limits – right to representation – present legal aid system unworkable and incompatible with UK international obligations – urgent need for reform – principles to be applied to applications for adjournments in extradition cases – legal aid for medical evidence.

    • Government of the United Arab Emirates v Allen [2012] 1 WLR 3419

    Fraud – undated cheque as security against default on mortgage repayments – whether “representation” capable of including promise of future action – Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by false representation.

    • Owens v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2010] 1 WLR 17

    Extradition – post-appeal surrender time limits.

    • R (Director of RCPO) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 286

    Extradition – specialty – committal for default of payment of confiscation order – whether an offence – abuse of process.

    • Von der Pahlen v Austria [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 320

    Extradition – European Arrest warrants – required particulars of conduct.

    • R (Bermingham) v Director of the SFO [2007] QB 727

    Extradition – Enron – the “Natwest three” – abuse of process – forum – allocation of jurisdiction – place of trial – Article 8 ECHR – extradition offence

    • Boudhiba v Central Examining Court No. 5 of the National Court of Justice, Madrid [2007] 1 WLR 124

    Extradition – the 9/11 attacks.

    • Welsh & Thrasher v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 1 WLR 1281

    Extradition – specialty.

    • Government of Germany v Kleinschmidt [2006] 1 WLR 1

    Extradition – requirements for service.

    • Hunt v Court of First Instance, Antwerp [2006] 2 All ER 735

    Extradition – oppression – legitimate sense of security.

    • John v Government of the United States of America [2007] ACD 55

    Extradition – autrefois acquit and double jeopardy – abuse of process.

    • R (Okandeji) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2006] 1 WLR 674

    Extradition – appellate remedies following remittal – availability of judicial review – ouster clauses.

    • R (Oliver) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 3 CMLR 46

    Extradition – Framework Decision – implementing legislation – reciprocity – judicial review of refusal to de-certify category 1 territory.

    • Government of the Republic of Albania v Bleta (Nos. 1 & 2) [2005] 1 WLR 3576, DC & [2005] 1 WLR 3194

    Extradition – deliberate absention from trial – judicial review of Secretary of State’s certificate of validity.

    • In re: Holmes [2005] 1 WLR 1857

    Extradition – dual criminality – obtaining money transfers by deception.

    • In re: Proulx [2001] 1 All ER 57

    Extradition – murder – entrapment – admissibility of evidence – application of PACE to extradition proceedings.

  • Fraud and Financial Crime

    A significant part of Mark’s international criminal law practice is centred around fraud and financial crime.  He is regularly instructed to prosecute and defend high-profile cross-border complex fraud cases.

    His caseload has included ● USA v Michael Lynch (sale of Autonomy to Hewlett Packard) ● Mexico v Tubilla (corruption prosecution of wife of Governor of Varacruz state) ● India v Vijay Mallya (collapse of Kingfisher Airlines) ● USA v Pearse (Mozambique “tuna bond” fraud) ● USA v Sarao (the 2010 “flash crash”) ● USA v Serageldin (Credit Suisse executive prosecuted for his part in the 2008 financial crisis) ● the collapse of Enron (the “NatWest 3”).

  • Mark’s reported Fraud and Financial Crime cases
    • Chawla v Government of India [2020] 1 WLR 1609, Divisional Court

    Extradition – spot-fixing – powers of judge at extradition hearing following remittal by the High Court – no subsequent right of appeal against remitted decision – appropriate mechanism is application to reopen original High Court decision.

    • Shmatko v Russian Federation [2019] ACD 31, Divisional Court

    Extradition – Russian assurances – whether reliable – non-disclosure

    • Ejinyere v USA [2019] ACD 5, Divisional Court

    Extradition – Forum – interaction with mental health grounds

    • Scott v USA [2019] 1 WLR 774, Divisional Court

    Extradition – forum – relevance of likelihood of no UK prosecution in the event of extradition being refused

    • Sulaiman v Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 111, Divisional Court

    Extradition – money laundering – extraterritorial jurisdiction.

    • Puceviciene v Lithuanian judicial authority [2016] 1 WLR 4937, Divisional Court

    Extradition – guideline authority on s12A bar – decision to charge and try – whether mutual legal assistance relevant.

     

    • United States v Sarao [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 339, Divisional Court

    Extradition – the “Flash Crash” – dual criminality – fraud by false representation – market manipulation – misleading impressions – misleading statements.

    • R v GH [2015] 1 WLR 2126, Supreme Court

    Money laundering – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – section 328 – entering into a money laundering arrangement – “criminal property” must already exist at the time the arrangement comes into operation, not when defendant enters into the arrangement – “criminal property” must be derived from separate predicate crime – arrangement may be divisible – arrangement to acquire non-criminal money not within section 328 – but once acquired, continued retention, use or control of the money within section 328 – reasoning also applies to sections 327 and 329

    • Badre v Court of Florence, Italy [2014] ACD 93, Divisional Court

    Extradition – dual criminality – breach of Payment Services Directive – Directive transposed differently in UK – dual criminality not made out on mere basis of failure to comply with national implementing legislation – breach of other Directives not charged in the Requesting State legally irrelevant to dual criminality enquiry.

    • Government of the United Arab Emirates v Allen [2012] 1 WLR 3419, Divisional Court

    Fraud – undated cheque as security against default on mortgage repayments – whether “representation” capable of including promise of future action – Fraud Act 2006 – fraud by false representation.

    • R v Amir & Butt [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. (S). 68, Court of Appeal

    Corruption – international cricket – spot-fixing – sentence.

    • R (Director of RCPO) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 286, Divisional Court

    Extradition – specialty – committal for default of payment of confiscation order – whether an offence – abuse of process.

    • Von der Pahlen v Austria [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 320, Divisional Court

    Extradition – European Arrest warrants – required particulars of conduct.

    • Nicholas (Mora Oil Ventures Ltd.) v Magistrate Rambachan [2009] UKPC 1, Privy Council

    Trinidad & Tobago – Larceny – conversion – private prosecutions – judicial review – sufficiency of evidence.

    • R (Bermingham) v Director of the SFO [2007] QB 727, Divisional Court

    Extradition – Enron – the “Natwest three” – abuse of process – forum – allocation of jurisdiction – place of trial – Article 8 ECHR – extradition offence

    • In re: Holmes [2005] 1 WLR 1857, Divisional Court

    Fraud – obtaining money transfers by deception.

  • Investigatory powers

    Challenging state investigatory powers lies at the heart of Mark’s work, and he is able to bring to such challenges a breadth of knowledge earned in his vast experience of international  investigatory measures. He led, for example, the recent Supreme Court challenge to the use of closed evidence in search warrant applications.

  • Mark’s recent Investigatory Powers cases
    • R (Elgizouli) v SSHD [2020] 2 WLR 857, Supreme Court

    Mutual legal assistance – provision of evidence to foreign criminal investigation – facilitation of death penalty – no duty to obtain assurances – prerogative powers – power to develop the common law in line with ECHR – data protection – transfer of personal data to third countries.

    • Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court [2018] AC 236, Supreme Court

    Search warrants – PACE 1984, section 8 – judicial review – CJPA 2001, section 59 — disclosure of Information – PII redactions – disclosed materials not sufficient to establish lawfulness of warrant – PII materials deployed as evidence – closed evidence procedure – Al-Rawi not applicable – no minimum level of disclosure.

    • R (TL) v Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2017] 1 WLR 2047, Divisional Court

    Arrest without warrant – to effect prompt investigation – necessity of arrest – imposition of bail conditions or search of property as justification for arrest.

    • R (Mills) v Sussex Police [2015] 1 WLR 2199, Divisional Court

    Search warrants – appropriate test for setting aside following material non-disclosure – whether judge might have refused to issue warrant with full information – Tchenguiz overturned.

  • Serious crime and terrorism

    Mark has represented senior members of both the Bar and Judiciary as defendants in criminal proceedings, including proceedings before the Privy Council. He is particularly experienced in cases concerning complex cross-border and jurisdictional issues, the law of abuse of process, including irregular extradition and breach of specialty.

    The broad and varied spectrum of Mark’s criminal trial and advisory work includes ● defending in the Pakistani cricket spot-fixing trial ● death row litigation before the Privy Council ● advising the Public Solicitor of St. Helena & Ascension on the operation of the fair trial provisions of the Islands’ new Constitution  ● proceedings concerning the legality of the policing of the Royal Wedding ● advising Libyan nationals concerning allegations of torture and rendition.

    Mark has particular experience in anti-terrorism prosecutions. His terrorism trial caseload before the UK courts has recently included ● R v Anjem Choudary ● the 1982 Hyde Park IRA bombing ● Syrian fundraising ● “operation Examine”; terrorist fundraising and suicide plot to attack unknown targets in the UK ● “operation Norbury”; the plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange ● “Operation Overt”; the 2006 Heathrow airline liquid bomb plot ●  the 21/7 London bombing attempts ● R v Tsouli (aka “terrorist007” – reputed to be Al-Qaeda’s ”webmaster” and “cyber-Muhajid”) ● the ‘ricin’ conspiracy ● the murder of DC Oake ● the Stansted Airport Afghan Airlines hijacking ● production of chemical weapons.

  • Mark's reported serious crime and Terrorism cases: Death Penalty Work
    • R (Elgizouli) v SSHD [2020] 2 WLR 857, Supreme Court

    Mutual legal assistance – provision of evidence to foreign criminal investigation – facilitation of death penalty – no duty to obtain assurances – prerogative powers – power to develop the common law in line with ECHR – data protection – transfer of personal data to third countries.

    • Brown v Trinidad & Tobago [2012] 1 WLR 1577, Privy Council

    Death penalty – inadmissible evidence – dock identification – good character directions – proviso – fresh evidence – remittal for reconsideration.

  • Mark's reported serious crime and Terrorism cases: Terrorism
    • R v Haroon Syed [2019] 1 WLR 2459, Court of Appeal

    Entrapment – burden of proof – difference between English law and Strasbourg jurisprudence.

    • R v Anjem Choudary [2018] 1WLR 695, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – meaning of inviting support for a proscribed organisation – expression of personal beliefs – invitations to share beliefs – compatibility with Article 10 ECHR.

    • R v Anjem Choudary (No 2) [2017] 4 WLR 207, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – burden of proof – freedom of expression – jury directions – knowledge.

    • R v John Downey [2014], Crown Court

    Terrorism – the 1982 Hyde Park Bombing – proceedings stayed as an abuse of process.

    • R v Ali & others [2011] 3 All ER 1071, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – “Operation Overt” – the 2006 Heathrow airline liquid bomb plot – autrefois acquit – publicity – second retrials.

     

    • R v Sherif & Ors [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 235, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – assisting the 21/7 London bombing attempts.

    • Attorney General’s Reference (Nos. 85-87 of 2007) (R v Tsouli & others) [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 247, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – “terrorist007” – cyber-Muhajid.

    • R v Bourgass No. 2 [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 40, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – Wood Green ‘ricin’ poison conspiracy – murder of Special Branch officer DC Oake.

    • R v Safi & others [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 14, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – Stansted Afghan Airlines Hijacking – duress of circumstance – necessity.

     

  • Mark's reported serious crime and Terrorism cases: Other Serious Crime
    • R (Hicks) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] AC 256, Supreme Court

    Breach of the peace – policing of the Royal wedding – whether common law powers of arrest to prevent breach of the peace compatible with Article 5 ECHR.

    • R v GH [2015] 1 WLR 2126, Supreme Court

    Money laundering – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – section 328 – entering into a money laundering arrangement – “criminal property” must already exist at the time the arrangement comes into operation, not when defendant enters into the arrangement – “criminal property” must be derived from separate predicate crime – arrangement may be divisible – arrangement to acquire non-criminal money not within section 328 – but once acquired, continued retention, use or control of the money within section 328 – reasoning applies to sections 327 and 329 also.

    • R v Amir & Butt [2012] 2 Cr. App. R. (S). 68, Court of Appeal

    Corruption – international cricket – spot-fixing – sentence.

    • Nicholas (Mora Oil Ventures Ltd.) v Magistrate Rambachan [2009] UKPC 1, Privy Council

    Trinidad & Tobago – Larceny – conversion – private prosecutions – judicial review – sufficiency of evidence.

    • Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2007] 1 WLR 780, Privy Council

    Trinidad & Tobago – prosecution of Chief Justice – perverting the course of justice – judicial review of prosecutorial discretion.

    • R v Coutts [2006] 1 WLR 2154, House of Lords

    Homicide – duty to leave alternative verdicts.

    • R v Allen [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 95, Court of Appeal

    Sentencing – young offenders – gangs – retrials.

    • R v Reid [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 12, Court of Appeal

    Murder – minimum recommended term – use of knives – aggravating features.

    • I, M & H v DPP [2002] 1 AC 285, House of Lords

    Affray – brandishing weapons – requirement for perception of threat.

    • R v Goode [2002] MHLR 337, Court of Appeal

    Sentencing – medical evidence – psychiatric illness – restriction orders.

    • R v Gwillim-Jones [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 6, Court of Appeal

    Sentencing – recividism.

  • Public Law and Human Rights

    Mark has significant experience in public law human rights challenges in the criminal law context. He is often brought into cases which where the boundaries of criminal law require testing against human rights and ECtHR norms.

  • Reported Public Law and Human Rights cases
    • R (Elgizouli) v SSHD [2020] 2 WLR 857, Supreme Court

    Mutual legal assistance – provision of evidence to foreign criminal investigation – facilitation of death penalty – no duty to obtain assurances – prerogative powers – power to develop the common law in line with ECHR – data protection – transfer of personal data to third countries.

    • R v Haroon Syed [2019] 1 WLR 2459, Court of Appeal

    Entrapment – burden of proof – difference between English law and Strasbourg jurisprudence.

    • R v Anjem Choudary [2018] 1WLR 695, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – meaning of inviting support for a proscribed organisation – expression of personal beliefs – invitations to share beliefs – compatibility with Article 10 ECHR.

    • Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court [2018] AC 236, Supreme Court

    Search warrants – PACE 1984, section 8 – judicial review – CJPA 2001, section 59 — disclosure of Information – PII redactions – disclosed materials not sufficient to establish lawfulness of warrant – PII materials deployed as evidence – closed evidence procedure – Al-Rawi not applicable – no minimum level of disclosure.

    • R v Anjem Choudary (No 2) [2017] 4 WLR 207, Court of Appeal

    Terrorism – burden of proof – Article 10 ECHR – jury directions – knowledge.

    • R (Hicks) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] AC 256, Supreme Court

    Breach of the peace – policing of the Royal wedding – whether common law powers of arrest to prevent breach of the peace compatible with Article 5 ECHR.

    • Tague v Governor of HMP Full Sutton [2016] 1 Cr App R 15, Divisional Court

    Habeas Corpus – abuse of process – defendant extradited from Spain – extradition conditional on entitlement to retrial – retrial impossible under UK law – UK authorities taking custody of defendant nonetheless and committing to prison to serve sentence – whether abuse doctrine applies to post-conviction State conduct.

    • R (Woolley) v Ministry of Justice [2012] Lloyds Rep FC 442, Divisional Court

    Credit for time served in custody abroad pending extradition – unlawfully at large – Prisons Act 1952 – Criminal Justice Act 2003 – non-EU member States.

     

    • Nicholas (Mora Oil Ventures Ltd.) v Magistrate Rambachan [2009] UKPC 1, Privy Council

    Trinidad & Tobago – Larceny – conversion – private prosecutions – judicial review – sufficiency of evidence.

    • Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2007] 1 WLR 780, Privy Council

    Trinidad & Tobago – prosecution of Chief Justice – perverting the course of justice – judicial review of prosecutorial discretion.

    • Rodgers v Brixton Prison Governor [2005] 1 Prison LR 1, Divisional Court

    Parole – judicial review – recall to prison – supervision.

     

  • Publications

Privacy Notice

Mark is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, Mark needs to collect and hold personal data. Mark’s Privacy Notice contains full details of when, why and how he will store and process personal data. To read his Privacy Notice, please click here.

Mark is regulated by the Bar Standards Board and accepts instructions under Standard Contractual Terms. To find out more information on this and the way we work at Matrix, including our fee transparency statement, please see our see our service standards.

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS
WHAT THEY SAY:

Mark is consistently ranked by both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 and as a leading silk in crime and extradition:

“An absolutely outstanding silk whose knowledge and intellectual breadth really set him apart.” “A great scholar and a powerful advocate who is very knowledgeable.”

“Great in front of a jury, he is extremely talented and prepared to take difficult and novel legal points.” (Chambers & Partners, 2021)

 “A powerful and eloquent advocate; he leaves no stone unturned and is on top of every detail.” (Legal 500, 2021)

“an outstanding intellect” (Legal 500, 2020)

“His attention to detail is just phenomenal. Every single last ounce of the material is dealt with. He is unflappable and is very effective on pre-charge work.” (Chambers and Partners 2020) 

A “ridiculously good” practitioner praised for his skill with “tricky extradition questions,” he is an expert in mutual legal assistance, and represents individuals as well as European and other governments in all manner of extradition cases. “He brings his vast knowledge of the extradition field and uses it to dazzle judges in a very effective way.” (Chambers and Partners 2020) 

“Extremely knowledgeable, clever and hard-working.” (Chambers and Partners 2020) 

“His advocacy is very enjoyable to watch: he is very careful with the judges and he pushes gently.” (Chambers and Partners 2020) 

“Undoubtedly one of the most impressive extradition silks in the business. His command of domestic and EU extradition law is intimidating.” (Chambers and Partners 2020)

…An exceptional advocate who is an expert in mutual legal assistance, and represents individuals as well as European and other governments in all manner of extradition cases. He has particular experience of handling US extradition matters. Market sources note:  He is fantastic and a go-to extradition silk…Out of all of the younger extradition silks, he is widely regarded as one of the best. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of case law…’ (Chambers and Partners 2018)

…A brilliant extradition specialist who has a down-to-earth manner that inspires confidence…His performance at substantive hearings is very impressive…’ (Legal 500 2018)

“…An extremely knowledgeable and thorough silk who is an expert in mutual legal assistance…He has particular experience of handling US extradition matters…His technical knowledge is phenomenal, and he knows cases not just from this jurisdiction but from all around the world. He has an incredible grasp of detail and enjoys the confidence of all the judges..” (Chambers and Partners, 2017)

“At the top of the tree: bright, phenomenally hardworking and abundantly talented…A top lawyer, who takes every possible point for his clients and is first-rate in his examination of witnesses” (Legal 500, 2017)

…Described as “extraordinarily talented”, he comes highly recommended for his impressive courtroom manner. He is an expert in mutual legal assistance, and represents individuals as well as European and international governments in all manner of extradition cases. He has particular experience in handling US extradition matters. “He has what is pretty much unrivalled expertise in the field and a really detailed knowledge of the case law”, “He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of this area, his written work is amazing and he’s an incredibly effective advocate”…” (Chambers and Partners, 2016)

He “receives praise for his outstanding knowledge of extradition law and his continued presence in cutting-edge test cases…He is particularly recommended for his handling of terrorism-related extradition charges…He is very good and extremely knowledgeable…he has got a complete encyclopaedic knowledge of every extradition case there has ever been and is very good strategically…” (Chambers & Partners, 2015)