Daniel Sternberg2017-07-17T15:33:08+00:00
Daniel Sternberg

Daniel Sternberg

“A first-rate prosecutor” “A very nice, very calm measured advocate”

Chambers & Partners 2017




MA (Cantab)
CPE and LL.B City University London


Attorney-General’s Panel of Civil counsel – C Panel
CPS Advocate Panel at Level 2
CPS Extradition Panel at Level 2
SFO Prosecution Panel & Proceeds of Crime Panel – List C


Elected member of the Bar Council
Former Chairman of the Young Barristers Committee of the Bar Council (2015)
Member of the Executive Committee of the Criminal Bar Association
Committee member of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum

Overview of Practice

Daniel is a specialist extradition, immigration and public law practitioner. He appears regularly in the High Court, Magistrates’ Court and Tribunals, representing domestic and foreign Government departments, requesting authorities and applicants. He advises pre-arrest and in import extradition cases, involving the full range of offences. He is experienced in Judicial Review challenges to decisions of public authorities, and Habeas Corpus and unlawful detention cases.

Recent instructions include representing the Government of Peru in their first extradition requests for serious drug smuggling charges. In 2016 he represented the Italian authorities in their request for the extradition of three men accused of beings members of a terrorist cell linked to IS. He has advised and appeared on behalf of India, Brazil and Albania in the Magistrates’ and High Court.  and has represented UK government departments in challenges under the Freedom of Information Act and to the legality of detention. In the immigration field, he has represented the Secretary of State in Judicial Review challenges to fresh claims decisions concerning risk on return to Turkey and Albania. He has also appeared in an appeal challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude a person from the refugee convention on the basis that they had committed war crimes.

Daniel advised CPS Kent on post-extradition aspects of the high-profile case of Jeremy Forrest, a teacher who was extradited to the UK for abducting a pupil. Defence work includes advising on the UK’s extradition relations with Japan, and representing a requested person accused of involvement in a multi-million Euro VAT fraud.

Chambers and Partners quotes

Daniel Sternberg is listed as a leading junior in the extradition section of Chambers & Partners guide to the bar since 2014:

“A first-rate prosecutor” “A very nice, very calm measured advocate”

Chambers & Partners 2017

“He is an absolute gentleman and is always well prepared.”

Chambers & Partners 2016

“He is a good prosecutor who is fair and straight down the line.”

Chambers and Partners 2016

“He has an excellent eye for detail and is a barrister who truly sympathises with the emotional as well as the legal needs of his client.”

Chambers and Partners 2015

“He takes cases very seriously. He is very clever.”

Chambers and Partners 2014

Practice Areas/Notable Cases

Daniel practises in all areas of criminal law, both prosecution and defence. He appears as a prosecutor for the CPS (including former DWP cases), the Royal Mail, Capita and local authorities in the Magistrates’ and Crown Court. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and has succeeded in reducing excessive sentences on appeal.

Daniel prosecutes and defends in the Crown and Magistrates’ courts in the full range of hearings including confiscation. He also has experience in the Youth Court dealing with young and vulnerable clients and witnesses as well as those requiring special measures.

Notable Cases

R v. Swaby [2014] EWCA Crim 1502. Daniel was successful in this appeal to the Court of Appeal against an excessive sentence for an offence of robbery in which minimal force was used.

R v. Rashid Hussein [2011] EWCA Crim 1310. A successful appeal to the Court of Appeal following the imposition of a ‘free-standing’ EPP extended license period, not attached to any particular offence following convictions for robbery, affray and assault. The sentences imposed were reduced and the extended sentence quashed.

Daniel is a member of the Serious Fraud Office’s Panel of prosecution counsel. He is experienced in representing both prosecution and defence in fraud matters as well as dealing with disclosure in heavy fraud cases.

The Financial Conduct Authority instructed Daniel to advise them on aspects of foreign law relating to two individuals who were under investigation for regulatory and criminal offences. As part of a team of members of chambers he assisted a well-known City bank in conducting an internal regulatory inquiry.

Daniel has particular experience of fraud in the context of extradition cases, including representing the Government of the USA in a multi-handed prosecution for credit card fraud spanning several years, a Belgian Judicial authority which sought the extradition of a man for boiler room fraud, and the Government of Ukraine in requests for extradition linked to the collapse of BTA bank. On the defence side he recently represented a man accused of involvement in a multi-million Euro VAT fraud wanted in Germany.

Daniel Sternberg is a member of the SFO’s panel of counsel instructed in proceeds of crime matters. He has recently advised the SFO on enforcement of a confiscation order where the defendant absconded and left the UK. He has appeared in confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court, including on behalf of local authorities.
Both defendants and prosecuting authorities have instructed Daniel in business regulation cases, ranging from breaches of planning enforcement notices to food hygiene, unauthorised works carried out to listed buildings and trademarks offences. He is experienced in advising solicitors and clients conducting such cases from the outset, from before the first hearing in the Magistrates’ Court to conclusion in the Crown Court.
Appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of Civil Counsel in 2015, Daniel has specialist knowledge in the field of immigration. Before joining Chambers, Daniel worked as a presenting officer for the Home Office, representing the Secretary of State regularly in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in all types of cases including asylum, entry clearance, immigration bail, deportation and human rights claims. Daniel regularly brings his knowledge of immigration law to criminal and extradition proceedings as well as Immigration litigation itself.

Daniel is regularly instructed in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First Tier and Upper Tribunal and in Judicial Review and unlawful detention matters in the High Court. Experienced in Immigration Judicial Review, he has advised and represented claimants and the Home Office from the pre-action stage through contested Judicial Review proceedings and on costs. His experience includes asylum claims, exclusion from the Refugee convention under Article 1F, human rights matters, highly skilled migrants, EEA applications, unlawful detention, and victims of domestic violence.

Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking cases are an area in which Daniel has particular experience. Using his knowledge of both immigration and extradition law he recently advised the National Crime Agency in relation to a person who sought to Judicially review a ‘reasonable grounds’ decision on whether they had been a victim of modern slavery, who was simultaneously subject to extradition proceedings.

Notable cases

R (Kasicky) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2016] UKUT 107 (IAC) a case concerning the meaning of the word ‘appearance’ and ‘serious troubles’ in the EEA regulations and whether conditions could be taken into account in considering whether to admit a person to attend an appeal hearing

R (Chowdhary) v. SSHD [2017] A substantive Judicial Review claim challenging the certification of a fresh claim where the applicant suffered from mental health problems, causing confusion as to his age.

DJ v. SSHD [2017] FTT A statutory appeal concerning whether the applicant should be excluded from the Refugee Convention under Article 1F because of his involvement in an armed conflict in a former Soviet State.

US (India) 2011, advised an Indian citizen holding leave to remain as a student who sought to change status following a same sex partnership ceremony on in and out of country applications and appeal rights. Client was granted leave to remain in this category following advice.

VP (Italy), 2007 FTT. Represented the Home Secretary in an appeal against deportation by an appellant convicted of attempted murder who had received an extended sentence. This case raised important points of interpretation of the meaning of ‘imperative in the interests of public security’ in the context of deportation of European citizens.

Chambers and Partners rates Daniel Sternberg as a leader in the field of extradition.

Daniel is a specialist extradition practitioner. He regularly appears in contested extradition proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the Administrative Court on behalf of both requesting authorities and requested persons under both parts 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act. He advises prosecuting and requesting authorities and requested persons pre-arrest and is experienced in permission to appeal applications in the Supreme Court. He was seconded to the CPS extradition unit for 9 months in 2009-10 including advising in import extradition cases.

Daniel has proficiency in dealing with the full range of issues that arise in extradition hearings and appeals. These include matters arising at initial and full hearings and appeals, High Court bail applications, extradition offences, bars to extradition and Human Rights. He is able to provide advice on appeal. Daniel is adept at arguing points of law on appeal in the Administrative Court and on applications for permission to certify points of law of general public importance and to appeal to the Supreme Court. Daniel has also appeared in Judicial Review proceedings challenging removal time limits and failure to remove persons whose extradition has been ordered.

With Rebecca Niblock, Maya Silva and Katherine Tyler of Kingsley Napley, Daniel is the editor of Westlaw Insight articles on Extradition and, with Katherine Tyler, entirely redrafted the Chapter on Extradition in Blackstone’s Criminal Practice.

Notable Cases

Zada v. The Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Trento, Italy [2017] EWHC 513 (Admin) Divisional Court. As junior alone Daniel successfully represented the Italian authorities in their request for the extradition of a man convicted of people trafficking who had previously been extradited to France and prosecuted there for similar conduct. The appeal turned on whether his extradition was barred by double jeopardy.

Ahmed v. Swedish Economic Crime Authority [2017] EWHC 345 (Admin) Divisional Court. Instructed as junior alone against a QC and junior, this appeal concerned whether the Swedish authorities had taken a decision to charge and try the appellant and whether his extradition would breach ECHR article 3, 5 and 8.

Barci v. The Government of Albania [2017] EWHC 369 (Admin) Divisional Court. The requested person was wanted for murder in Albania. He sought to raise alleged corruption in the Judicial system and his right to a retrial. Daniel successfully represented the Albanian authorities in this request.

Olga C v. The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 2211 (Admin) Divisional Court. junior alone against a QC and junior. This case was the first extradition appeal to consider the interaction between the status of a person recognised as a victim of human trafficking and the impact of their extradition on their article 8 ECHR rights.

Cato v. The Republic of Peru & Ors [2016] EWHC 914 (Admin) Divisional Court. Daniel represented the Government of Peru in their first request for extradition in living memory. The defendants were accused of serious drugs trafficking offences and raised arguments including prison conditions and trial processes under articles 3 and 6 ECHR.

Brasov v. Italy [2015] EWHC 779 (Admin) Administrative Court. The requested person was wanted for offences of people trafficking and controlling prostitution. Daniel represented the requested person advancing arguments relating to the sufficiency of the particulars on the EAW and whether Italian prison conditions complied with article 3 ECHR.

Kapoor v. The Government of India [2015] EWHC 1378 (Admin) Divisional Court. The Government of India sought the appellant for abducting his niece. Daniel successfully represented the Indian authorities against a QC. The appeal raised questions of the admissibility of evidence, abuse of process and whether extradition to India would breach articles 3 and 8 ECHR.

Kandola & Ors v Generalstaatwaltschaft Frankfurt, Germany & Ors [2015] EWHC 619 (Admin) Divisional Court. As a led junior Daniel appeared in the first major case to consider the new Section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, whether extradition is barred by a lack of decisions to charge and try.

The Government of Ghana v. Gambrah & Anor [2014] EWHC 1569 (Admin) Divisional Court. Led by a QC Daniel represented the Government of Ghana in their appeal against a District Judge’s decision to discharge a man wanted in Ghana for murder who faced the mandatory death penalty, notwithstanding assurances that it would not be carried out.

Arshad v. Court of Magistrates Malta [2013] EWHC 3619 (Admin) Divisional Court. In an appeal that took over a year from start to finish Daniel represented an extremely vulnerable defendant whose mental health deteriorated in the course of proceedings to the extent that he was detained in hospital. Daniel successfully argued that his state of mental health was so poor that his extradition was oppressive.

Kane v. Trial Court No 5 Marbella, Spain [2011] EWHC 824 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 375. Administrative Court. Daniel represented the Spanish Judicial authority at first instance and in an appeal in a four-handed request for extradition to prosecute several people for conspiracy to import several thousand kilos of cannabis into Spain. The Appeal concerned whether service of the first page of a sealed notice of appeal and an unsealed copy of the rest constituted a valid notice of appeal and the details of the offences in the EAW. The appeal was dismissed.

Daniel is experienced in Judicial Review proceedings, particularly claims under immigration and extradition law. In this context he has advised and appeared in applications for permission for JR, substantive Judicial Review hearings and applications for bail and for interim relief.

Notable cases

R (Boyer) v. SSHD [2017] Upper Tribunal. Successfully defended an attempt to judicially review a decision to refuse a fresh claim for asylum where all the applicant’s siblings had been granted asylum or leave in the UK.

R (C) v. SSHD [2017] Upper Tribunal. A substantive Judicial Review of a decision by the Secretary of State to certify the applicant’s asylum claim as clearly unfounded where he claimed a risk on return to Albania due to his sexuality.

Attorney General v. Carruthers [2016] Divisional Court. Instructed on behalf of the Attorney General, Daniel successfully applied for a person to be designated as a vexatious litigant and to be prohibited from acting as a McKenzie friend; he had over many years issued multiple meritless claims against a local authority.

Johnson v. Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice [2015] FTT (Information Rights) Daniel appeared on behalf of a central government department in a challenge under the Freedom of Information Act to a refusal to disclose records relating to Council Tax prosecutions held by a Magistrates’ Court.

R (Igbinova) v. Secretary of State [2014] Administrative Court. Daniel appeared in an application for Judicial Review of a challenge to the competent authority’s decision that there were not reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had been a victim of human trafficking. The proceedings were complicated by parallel extradition proceedings.

R (Gambrah) v. CPS, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and others [2013] EWHC 4126 (Admin) Divisional Court. As a led junior, Daniel appeared in this substantive Judicial Review claim in the Divisional Court which considered whether the CPS’s disclosure obligations in extradition proceedings had been altered by a recent decision of the Supreme Court.

Polomski v. Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 1893 (Admin) Against a QC, Daniel appeared in this Judicial Review claim dealing with the effect of the Tariff Expired Removal Scheme on prisoners subject to simultaneous extradition proceedings.

Simao v. Governor of HMP Wandsworth and Westminster Magistrates Court [2012] EWHC 3948 (Admin) Divisional Court. An application for Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review relating to the legality of detention. The case considered the meaning of the word ‘practicable’ in the context of the need for prompt production of a person arrested under the Extradition Act 2003.

Both HMRC and Border Force have instructed Daniel to appear in appeals concerning condemnation, forfeiture and assessment of penalties in the First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and in the Magistrates’ Court. Daniel is experienced in arguments relating to the existence of duty points, the proportionality of penalties and their compatibility with article 6 ECHR. Daniel is skilled in preparing statements of case and the presentation of appeals before the First Tier Tribunal as well as condemnation proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court.

Notable cases

GTS SpA v. HMRC [2017] FTT. Daniel appeared on behalf of HMRC in this appeal concerning whether a penalty for inadvertent involvement in alcohol smuggling had been imposed in time, whether a duty point occurred and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse.

Kaja Trans v. Director of Border Revenue [2016] UKFTT 238 (TC) Instructed by the Home Office, Daniel appeared in this appeal against the refusal to restore a vehicle involved in tobacco smuggling. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting Daniel’s submissions relating to the fee charged for restoration.

Kassab v. HMRC [2016] UKFTT 301 (TC) an appeal on dishonest evasion of excise duty and customs duty relating to the illicit importation of Shisha Tobacco. The appeal considered whether the appellant had acted dishonestly and if penalties had been lawfully imposed on him.