Natalie is an established extradition practitioner who regularly appears in proceedings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the High Court. She is appointed to the CPS Extradition Panel at Level 3. She accepts instructions on behalf of judicial authorities and requested persons in Part 1 and Part 2 extradition cases.

She appeared in Andrysiewicz v Poland, which is now the leading Supreme Court authority on the Article 8 bar to extradition.

Current instructions include:

• Hungary v L: representing the IJA in Consent Request proceedings involving 6 separate CRs. Unusually for CR proceedings, these are contested on multiple grounds.
• France v L: representing the IJA in accusation proceedings for offences which are said to have occurred entirely in Thailand, and which the RP claims he has already been acquitted of in Thailand. Involves consideration of expert evidence re prison conditions and autrefois acquit, abuse of process, and extraterritorial effect of English and French law.
• Romania v R: representing the IJA against a KC and Junior for the RP. Case involves a third reissuing of a warrant relating to the same conduct, with complex issues re trial in absence and abuse of process.
• Czech Republic v P: representing the IJA in a defence application to certify a question to the Supreme Court. Permission decision awaited.

Cases of interest include:

Andrysiewicz v Polish IJA [2025] UKSC 23 – Represented the Polish Judicial Authority (IJA) as junior alone (High Court) and led junior (Supreme Court) in this landmark case which considered the Article 8 bar to extradition for the first time since 2013. The case is now the leading authority on Article 8 in extradition.

Poland v P (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) – Represented the Requested Person sought by the Polish authorities on a re-issued warrant for offending dating back to 2003. The Requested Person suffered from mental health issues (which were exacerbated by the stress of proceedings) and had a well-established life here in the UK. He was discharged by the District Judge and that decision was not appealed by the CPS.

Romania v L (High Court) – represented the IJA in a renewed application for permission to appeal. The case raised the ongoing issue of a right to a retrial in Romania following the decision of the Supreme Court in Merticariu. Permission to appeal refused. The Judge commended both counsel on the quality and clarity of their written and oral submissions.

Lakatos v Four Hungarian Judicial Authorities [2024] EWHC 2452 (Admin) – represented the Hungarian IJAs in a full appeal hearing. Appeal refused, notwithstanding the grant of permission by the Single Judge. The case raised several complex issues of law, including whether “escaping from house arrest” can be treated as the equivalent of the English offence of escape from lawful custody, and the question of deliberate absence in light of the findings of the Supreme Court in Bertino.

Cyprus v S (Westminster Magistrates’ Court) – very complex Cypriot case in which the Requested Person raised multiple separate bars to extradition (section 10 – dual criminality and mens rea for money laundering; forum; decision to charge/try; passage of time; Article 3 – prison conditions; and Article 8). Cross-examined a defence expert (Cypriot lawyer) on the charging process in Cyprus, the extent to which the RP’s absence was preventing a charging decision from being made, and whether a prison conditions assurance had been issued by a competent authority.

Poland v Rybak [2021] EWHC 712 (Admin) – Represented the Polish authorities in one of the leading cases on ‘Brexit Uncertainty’.

Portugal v Barcelos [2021] EWHC 2036 (Admin) – Represented the Portuguese authorities in a case involving finely balanced arguments about proportionality in circumstances where the appellant had served much of his sentence on bail.

Poland v Lipski [2020] EWHC 1257 (Admin) – Represented the Polish authorities in a case involving complex expert evidence about the impact of extradition on the requested person’s son.

Poland v ZZ (both at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and on appeal to the High Court) – Represented Z who contested his extradition on the basis that he had been placed in a witness protection programme and his life would be endangered if he were returned to Poland.

In 2019, Natalie was seconded to CPS London North and gained particular experience of drafting European Arrest Warrants and European Investigation Orders in the context of criminal proceedings. Her extradition experience means that she is particularly well-suited to dealing with criminal proceedings with a cross-jurisdictional element.