Corinne Bramwell

Called 2005

Introduction

Screen Shot 2019-01-12 at 13.05.25

Corinne was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 2005. She is an experienced and skilful trial advocate with expertise in extradition law and complex criminal litigation. Her practice encompasses a broad range of both defence and prosecution work in all areas of complex crime; extradition, regulatory law and professional discipline.

Corinne has appeared at courts martial in the UK and Germany and she has substantial experience of appeal court litigation particularly in the field extradition law.

Corinne spent six months seconded to the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime & Counter Terrorism Division, Extradition Unit. As Senior Crown Prosecutor, Corinne practised exclusively in extradition law advising and representing foreign governments and judicial authorities at all stages of the extradition process. She also advised domestic prosecution agencies in respect of extradition to the United Kingdom from foreign states. In independent practice she also represents people fighting extradition at all stages of the process.

She is qualified to represent members of the public directly and without a solicitor through the Bar Council’s Direct Access Scheme.

Practice Areas

  • Extradition
  • Human rights
  • Judicial review
  • Courts Martial
  • Criminal law
  • Complex financial crime
  • Serious sexual offences
  • Regulatory law and professional discipline

Appointments

  • Bar Council Direct Access Scheme accredited barrister
  • Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Grade 4 prosecutor (London and the South East)
  • CPS specialist Extradition panel advocate
  • CPS specialist Fraud panel advocate
  • CPS specialist Serious Crime panel advocate
  • CPS specialist Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) panel advocate
  • Pupil Supervisor

Education

  • Certificate in Law, War and Human Rights – London School of Economics
  • BVC – Inns of Court School of Law, City University
  • LLB (Hons) European, International and Comparative Law – University of Sheffield and University of Helsinki

Extradition Work

  • N v Poland (2019) - Requested person’s extradition sought on a conviction warrant for burglary offences.
  • Ireland v J (2019) - Requested person’s extradition on an accusation warrant for multiple serious sexual offences.
  • L v Germany (2018) - Requested person’s extradition sought for fraud offences.
  • Wilby and Halliday v. Czech Republic [2012] EWHC 1006 (Admin) - Successfully resisted the Appellants’ challenge of an order for their extradition for drug trafficking offences.
  • Poland v. O (2012) - Successfully resisted an order for the extradition of a Requested Person on the grounds of section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, mental health.
  • Slovakia v. K (2012) - Successfully made representations to the Issuing Judicial Authority to have the European Arrest Warrant withdrawn.
  • Nikitins v Prosecutor General’s Office Latvia [2012] EWHC 2621 (Admin) - case involving submissions as to the validity of the European Arrest Warrant.
  • Istanek v. Czech Republic [2011] EWHC 1498 (Admin) - case involving submissions pursuant to section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003; specifically, whether a right to retrial was inconsistent with a fugitive being a convicted person for the purposes of extradition. Led by John Hardy QC.
  • Coleiro v. Malta [2011] EWHC 873 (Admin) - Represented an Appellant challenging extradition on the basis the Judge at first instance had erroneously found prison conditions to be compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Rot v. Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) - Represented a suicidal Appellant challenging the compatibility of extradition with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 based on the mental health of the Appellant and the lack of suitable facilities in the requesting state.
  • Italy v. Barone [2010] EWHC 3004 (Admin) - Instructed on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Turin to extradite the Defendant for offences of aggravated murder, attempted robbery and illegal possession and carrying of arms. The case involved legal argument on abuse of process and delay pursuant to section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003Led by Alun Jones QC
  • Rytmetis v. Lithuania [2010] EWHC 1048 (Admin) - High Court appeal against an order for extradition, challenging the validity of a European Arrest Warrant, pursuant to section 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003; and the compatibility of extradition with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Okruch v. Poland [2010] EWHC 1047 (Admin) - High Court appeal against an order for extradition challenging its compatibility with Articles 2 and of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 based on the mental health of the Appellant and the lack of suitable facilities in the requesting state.
  • Johnson and Stevens v. France [2009] EWHC 2830 (Admin) - Successfully resisted an appeal concerning the validity of European Arrest Warrants which sought the return of British nationals to face trial for serious drug trafficking offences in France.
  • Mihociu v. Hungary [2010] EWHC 708 (Admin) - Successfully resisted an appeal against an order for extradition on grounds of abuse of process, oppression due to the passage of time and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Kwasny v. Poland [2010] EWHC 518 (Admin) - Successfully resisted an appeal against an order for extradition. The Appellant had effectively served three months more than that required to be served in Poland due to a lengthy delay between the making of the extradition order and the appeal hearing.

Memberships

  • Inner Temple
  • South Eastern Circuit
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Members CV
  • 9BRi Lobbying Forum
  • Expertise
  • Events & Calendar