|Home | Site Map | T: 020 7842 0650 | firstname.lastname@example.org | Kaim Todner Solicitors - Part of ONE Legal||English Polski Español|
Mobile: 07950 233792
Kevin is the Head of the Extradition Department and is a 2019 Chambers and Partners ranked extradition lawyer.
He has amassed extensive experience in a wide range of Part I and Part II extradition requests and attends City of Westminster Magistrates' Court daily to represent Requested Persons. This experience includes requests from the USA, Russia, Brazil, Dubai, Albania, the Philippines and most EU countries. He is also regularly instructed in Interpol Red Notice challenges.
As well as his work in international law, Kevin is a seasoned criminal advocate and frequently represents clients at the Crown Court and at summary trial, focussing on violence, dishonesty and road traffic offences.
Biri v Hungary  - High Court appeal which sets precedent on how judges should read an extradition warrant when deciding whether it is sufficiently detailed, and also whether it meets the dual criminality test. Mr Biri's extradition was discharged on some of the offences stated in his European Arrest Warrant because the wording was not sufficiently detailed for him to understand what he was accused of, and also because some of the offences did not correspond to a criminal offence in England.
Kortas v Poland  - Well publicised extradition case where we uncovered evidence suggesting that Poland was not giving effect to specialty protection for requested persons who had been extradited on some but not all of the offences named on the European Arrest Warrant.
Dusza v Poland  - Recent High Court Appeal where it was successfully argued that the client was not a fugitive, having received a letter from the Polish State informing him that his sentence had been suspended unconditionally. This in turn meant that extradition would have disproportionately interfered with his Article 8 ECHR rights. The Appeal was allowed.
Greece v Carp  - The client's extradition was sought to stand trial for historic burglary offences. Through research into historic documents it was established that the client was not a fugitive. This was used as a basis from which to persuade the Court that extradition should be barred due to the passage of time making it both oppressive and unjust.
Romania v A  - The client's extradition was sought to serve a term of imprisonment for a series of road traffic offences. The client was discharged after it was successfully argued that the rights of his disabled children would be disproportionately affected by his removal from the country.
Slovakia v N  - Client's extradition was sought in respect of historic accusations of high value swindling. Discharge was secured after it was successfully argued that, due to the client's settled family circumstances and passage of time, her removal would be disproportionate.
A v France  - Notable High Court case where the client's extradition was sought to serve a long term of imprisonment for people trafficking. Immigration status and mental health issues were raised as the requested person was subject to an asylum application and had endured suspected torture when travelling to the United Kingdom.