James is a solicitor in the extradition department but also represents defendants in criminal matters.
During his training contract, James amassed significant experience in extradition matters having a case load encompassing both part 1 and part 2 cases. Some of the extradition cases he has worked on involved unique and unlitigated issues.
During his training contract he undertook a broad range of prison law advocacy both at Parole Hearings and is experienced in representation at prison adjudications before independent adjudicators across London and the South East. Not only this, he gained experience as a caseworker on criminal and confiscation matters. He has had experience in complicated judicial review matters relating to cross jurisdictional issues and challenges to search warrants.
Prior to joining Kaim Todner, James was a social security advocate for a welfare benefits charity representing appellants at the First Tier Social Security Tribunal.
With a background in assisting particularly vulnerable persons, James has a passion for delivering first class and sensitive client care whilst leaving no stone unturned in his preparation of cases.
Polish (Fluent), French (Intermediate)
Lancaster University - LLB (Law) - Upper Second Class Honours
University College London - LLM (Human Rights)
D v Lithuania (2016)
Discharge of Appellant under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 on grounds of extradition being oppressive due to passage of time elapsed.
W v Poland (2017)
Appellant discharged on grounds of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, following a consideration by the High Court of the treatment of vulnerable unrepresented persons in the magistrates' court and the appellant's psychological state.
O v Greece (2017)
Appellant discharged by a divisional court under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, owing to the fact that it was considered oppressive to extradite the appellant in relation to a 15 year old accusation of handling stolen goods. This case involved a consideration of the meaning of the word ‘oppression' under section 14 and the extent to which injustice must be demonstrated by the appellant, as well as arguments under Article 3 of the European Convention in relation to prison conditions in Greece.
PA v Portugal (2017)
Reported case considering the interlinking between concurrent family law proceedings and extradition proceedings, which lays down guidelines for how extradition cases should proceed when there are outstanding family proceedings.
L v USA (2017)
Case concerning the complex issue of the US Civil Commitment regime where it was argued that the regime breaches the Article 5 right to liberty.
Lauri Love v USA (2018)
High Court challenge to extradition to the USA on federal charges of cyber-crime. Case won on appeal on the Grounds of Forum under section 83A of the Extradition Act 2003 and owing to passage of time under section 91 of the Act.
R v MS (Operation Cannon) (ongoing)
Prosecuted by Serious Fraud Office. Confiscation following conviction for multi-million pound Ponzi fraud (ongoing).
Parole Board v JG (2016)
Advocate in parole proceedings in relation to post tariff life-sentenced prisoner. Client 15 years over tariff who maintained innocence for the offence. Parole Board granted move to open conditions.
Parole Board v AC (2018)
Represented offender in Parole Board proceedings, client had been recalled due to unrelated issues whilst on unconditional bail for an earlier serious offence but initially refused release owing to the impending trial. Client released after written submissions.
Parole Board v DM (2018)
Advocate in parole proceedings in relation to a post tariff life-sentenced prisoner. Client had served 39 years in custody. He was 26 years post tariff and had absconded from open conditions twice. Client released.