Notable Cases:
Extradition Reported High Court Appeals
Girboiu v Vrancea Tribunal, Romania [2026] EWHC 1816 (Admin) (Mould J) – Represented the appellant in an appeal concerning two conviction arrest warrants under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The case raised sections 2(6)(b), 10, 20 and 65 of the Extradition Act 2003, together with Article 8. Matei argued that foreign statutory labels could not cure gaps in the particulars of conduct.
Dimin v Romania [2025] EWHC 768 (Admin) (Heather Williams J) – Called expert evidence on section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the appellant’s entitlement to a retrial in Romania. Applying Bertino, the Court held that an unequivocal waiver could not be inferred from fugitive status alone. The Court also observed, applying Merticariu, that a right to request re-judging under Article 466(2) involved a decision on a substantive issue rather than a procedural step.
Marin v Romania [2025] EWHC 178 (Admin) (Murray J) – Acted for the first appellant at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and on appeal. The case concerned whether a father and son, sought for violent disorder, had deliberately absented themselves from their Romanian appeal after attending the trial in person and without leaving Romania to evade justice.
Grigorie v Valcea Law Court, Romania [2024] EWHC 1436 (Admin) (Fordham J) – Represented a mother of two young British-born children who was sought to serve a sentence of four years and four months for fraud. Article 8 was assessed afresh on new evidence concerning the likelihood of local authority care and the children’s separation from their mother. The judgment is cited in Nicholls, Montgomery and Knowles, The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance (4th edn, OUP).
Extradition Part 2 Requests
Singapore v CY (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) – Acted as junior counsel, led by Helen Malcolm KC, in a Part 2 request for the surrender of a Singaporean opposition politician and practising lawyer on a charge of abetment of cheating.
Moldova v SC (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) – Advanced an Article 3 challenge concerning detention conditions at Leova Prison. The two-day evidential hearing involved three expert reports and focused on the informal hierarchy operating within Moldovan prisons and alleged breaches of assurances.
Extradition Outgoing Requests and INTERPOL
In re RS – Advised on an outgoing request by the United Kingdom to Cyprus under Part 3 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The warrant was issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court under section 142 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the underlying counts were brought under sections 3 and 4 of the National Security Act 2023. The advice addressed the bar under Article 601(1)(c).
In re TGA – Advised on exposure to an INTERPOL Red Notice or diffusion arising from an Armenian criminal investigation and on an application to the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files.
Judicial Review and Public Law
R (Rusu) v Northamptonshire Magistrates’ Court [2023] EWHC 3290 (Admin) (Johnson J) – Acted in a judicial review challenging a decision to adjourn a trial after the principal prosecution witness failed to attend. The judgment contains a detailed review of the principles governing adjournment in those circumstances.
Confiscation and Proceeds of Crime
R v CDM (Operation Chelburn) (Southwark Crown Court) – Acted in confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 following convictions for conspiracy to conceal criminal property and threats to kill. The underlying case concerned a transnational fraud involving 42 bank accounts across seven jurisdictions.
Crime
R v Arbati (Akbat) [2024] EWCA Crim 589 – Represented an Iranian national appealing sentence after conviction for attempting to arrive in the United Kingdom without valid entry clearance following a Channel crossing by small boat. The sentence was reduced from two years to 16 months.
Operation Delaware (Preston Crown Court) – Acted as led junior in a three-defendant conspiracy to defraud arising from the unauthorised streaming of subscription television channels in breach of copyright.
R v G (Truro Crown Court) – Defended in a four-day rape trial which resulted in an acquittal.
Commercial
TP v A Broker – Acted in a claim against a contracts-for-difference broker arising from the close-out of the claimant’s positions. The claim raised the Braganza duty, the validity of the claimant’s re-categorisation as a professional client and loss of a chance under Allied Maples principles.
