Benjamin Seifert

Extradition

Benjamin’s extensive extradition practice concerns the full range of challenges to extradition including the validity of European Arrest Warrants, rights to retrial, dual criminality, passage of time, decisions to charge or try and also habeas corpus.

He regularly acts in cases concerning prison conditions and the rights of individuals pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and Italy among others. He appeared in the only extradition case to be heard in the Supreme Court in 2018 and returned to the Court in 2021.

He has had numerous successes recently in cases concerning Article 8 of the ECHR representing individuals whose rights to a private and family life outweighed the public interest in extradition.

Benjamin has written articles and given many seminars on extradition law and is a co-author of the latest book on extradition law- A Practical Guide to Extradition Law Post-Brexit.

Benjamin is recommended as a ‘Leading Junior’ for Extradition by both Chambers & Partners (Band 1) and the Legal 500 (Band 2). Recent editorial includes:

• “Benjamin Seifert is incredibly motivated and wants to take all of the points. He has a real spark and energy.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Benjamin is a lovely advocate, very confident and nice to work with. He has many years of experience.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Benjamin is passionate about doing a good job for his clients.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Ben is charming, engaging and a polished advocate. His submissions are focused, eloquent and well-structured. He is a pleasure to work with and to be against. Ben demonstrates great judgement when choosing which arguments to run, giving his submissions real weight.” Legal 500 2026
• “He is really excellent with planning and preparation; he’s fantastic.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “He is a tenacious fighter who thinks very strategically.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “He is client-focused and results-driven, with excellent attention to detail and a proven record on his feet.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Ben has demonstrated excellent legal acumen in complex and issue-driven cases.  He has a detailed cross-jurisdictional knowledge, is a strong and clear advocate and is very approachable for professional and lay clients.” Legal 500 2025

Selected Cases

Court of Justice of the European Union

• VA v The Prosecutor Of The Regional Prosecutor’s Office In Ruse, Bulgaria Case C 206/20: The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the dual level of protection required by an underlying national arrest warrant which precedes the decision to issue a European Arrest Warrant.

Supreme Court

• El-Khouri v US Government [2025] UKSC 3: the definition of an “extradition offence” and the operation of the rule which determines whether or not an individual can be extradited for a crime which did not take place in the country which seeks his extradition.
• Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary UKSC 2019/0210: The use of assurances in cases concerning prison conditions.
• Konecny v District Court In Brno Venkov (Czech Republic) UKSC 2017/0200: Whether an individual can properly described as accused when he had been convicted but the conviction was not final and he had an unequivocal right to a retrial.

Court of Appeal

• R. v Mysiak (Thomasz) [2025] EWCA Crim 1292: The court allowed an appeal against a conviction for failure to surrender to bail where the appellant had been extradited from Netherlands and his extradition warrant had not mentioned that offence. It also allowed an appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited ammunition where the prosecution now accepted that the ammunition was not in fact prohibited ammunition.

High Court/ Divisional Court

• Lasek v Poland [2026] EWHC 54 (Admin)– A woman’s extradition risks leaving her young son with her husband who suffers from a number of comorbidities
• SLP v Latvia [2025] EWHC 298 (Admin)– An individual subject to an extradition request was subject to a finding of reasonable grounds that he was a victim of human trafficking
• Grinfeld v Israel [2025] EWHC 527 (Admin)– A reopened appeal in relation to an individual who faced extradition to Israel at a time of war
• Uckac v Turkey [2024] EWHC 3055 (Admin)– The risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR on extradition to Turkey
• Barkauskas v Liuthuania [2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin)– extradition offences and Article 3 ECHR
• Jipa v Romania [2024] EWHC 2785 (Admin)– The adequacy of the particulars of offending on a Part 1 Warrant
• Octavian Radu v Romania [2024] 1 WLR 4311– Important decision on amending a notice of appeal
• Emil Radu v Romania [2024] EWHC 858 (Admin)– The balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR in relation to the extradition of a man accused of attempted murder
• Urbonas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 33 (Admin)– Prison conditions in Lithuania
• Doga v France [2023] EWHC 2561 (Admin)– An application to reopen an appeal in relation to a French extradition where it was established that every day spent on an electronically-monitored curfew counts towards a day in prison
• Grinfeld v Israel [2023] EWHC 2023 (Admin)– Extradition to Israel in relation to a religious father of 7 children.
• Banchev v Bulgaria [2023] EWHC 420 (Admin)– A requested person’s extradition to Bulgaria for an offence of riding a moped whilst his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limits was upheld even though the extradition warrant stated that his blood alcohol level had been measured by a breathalyser rather than a blood testing device
• Doga v France [2022] EWHC 3342 (Admin)– A European arrest warrant issued in respect of a fugitive offender was valid pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 s.2, notwithstanding a failure to provide particulars of two of the five offences the offender had allegedly been convicted of. The district judge was also entitled to conclude that the offender had deliberately absented himself from trial for the purposes of s.20 and that there had been no breach of his ECHR art.6 rights
• Dobbek v Poland [2022] EWHC 1306 (Admin)– The High Court found that the District Judge was wrong to find that the Appellant was a fugitive
• Ristin v Romania [2022] EWHC 3163 (Admin)– There had been no error in a district judge’s decision to order a requested person’s extradition to Romania to serve his sentence for two drink driving offences. The judge had been entitled to find that the person was a fugitive even if he had been under no specific duty to remain in Romania: he had known of his conviction and sentence and had chosen to leave for the UK
• Dumitrache v Court of Pordenone, Italy [2021] EWHC 958 (Admin): Sole counsel for the appellant in the Divisional Court against David Perry KC. (Trials in absence and retrial rights).
• Udriste [2021] EWHC 2476 (Admin): Appeal against an order of extradition concerning Article 8 ECHR.
• Perry v USA [2021] EWHC 1956 (Admin): Representing the US government in an appeal concerning the definition of kidnapping
• Taylor & Anor v The Prosecutor General’s Office of Florence [2019] EWHC 2938 (Admin): Retrial rights in Italy.
• BY v District Court In Paphos, Cyprus [2019] EWHC 2637 (Admin): The Article 8 ECHR rights of a family with five children with significant medical problems.
• XY v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Oost Nederland [2019] EWHC 624 (Admin): The Article 8 ECHR rights of a man who had already served a sentence which was subsequently increased on appeal.
• Lis, Lange & Chmielewski v Polish Judicial Authorities [2018] EWHC 2848 (Admin): Allegations of the break down in the rule of law in Poland.
• Attila Imre v The District Court In Szolnok (Hungary) [2018] EWHC 218 (Admin): Notwithstanding a first instance conviction the EAW was an accusation warrant.
• Grecu & Bagarea [2017] 4 WLR 139: Romanian Prison conditions and breaches of Article 3 ECHR.
• Bicioc v Baia Mare Local Court, Romania [2017] EWHC 3391 (Admin): A second extradition appeal on a reissued warrant resulted in a finding that extradition would be disproportionate and a breach of Article 8 ECHR
• Raimundo Felix v Comarca De Lisboa, Portugal [2016] EWHC 3518 (Admin): The invalidity of an EAW pursuant to Section 2 of the 2003 Extradition Act.
• Zagrean, Sunca & Chihaia v Romanian Judicial Authorities [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin): Romanian prison conditions and breaches of Article 3 ECHR.
• Marku & Murphy v Greek Judicial Authorities [2016] EWHC 1801 (Admin): Greek prison conditions and breaches of Article 3 ECHR.
• Puceviciene, Conrath & Savov v Three Judicial Authorities [2016] 1 WLR 4937: The leading case on Section 12A of the 2003 Extradition Act.
• Spain v Warne [2015] EWHC 981 (Admin): A successful appeal against a discharge in relation to oppression.
• France v Charbit [2015] 1 W.L.R. 2359: A EAW which attached an annex was invalid.