Stefan Hyman

Stefan successfully defended a CPS appeal against the District Judge’s decision to discharge his client due to insufficient personal space in multioccupancy cells at Thessaloniki (Diavata) Prison. At first instance, the three requested persons, all of whom were remanded in custody, were discharged after the Greek authorities failed to answer the District Judge’s Aranyosi request within the timeframe given. The District Judge’s request followed an express concession some six months previously that conditions at Diavata Prison were incompliant with Article 3 ECHR. Four days after discharge, a document which purported to serve as an assurance was received. The CPS appealed under section 28 EA. In its decision, the Court considered: (i) the ambit of judicial review versus a statutory appeal under section 26 or 28 EA where a ruling resulted in a final order, be it discharge or extradition; (ii) the standard of review when seeking to make “a collateral attack” on a case management decision which resulted in a final order; (iii) the “relevant question” upon remittal under section 29(5) EA, particularly where multiple human rights challenges are raised.

Stefan represented a Romanian judicial authority before the High Court in a case which considered whether a requested person would be entitled to a retrial upon surrender. The endorsements to the EAW were ambiguous and the further information did not indicate whether the requested person’s application would succeed. Chamberlain J decided that he could not distinguish the facts thereof from BP v Romania [2015] EWHC 3417 (Admin) and dismissed the appeal; however, on 20 July 2022 he certified a question of general public importance concerning whether the requirements of section 20(5) EA 2003 are satisfied where there is more than a theoretical or remote possibility that, upon the requested person’s application, a court in the issuing (Member) State will refuse his application for a retrial. On 13 December 2022, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. Presently, a hearing date is awaited.

Stefan represented an Italian judicial authority in an appeal which considered deliberate absence from a criminal trial in Italy within the context of  section 20(3) EA 2003. The specific issue was implicit waiver through a manifest lack of diligence (Article 4a(1) FD EAW). The Court considered whether the rights guaranteed in Article 6(3)(c) ECHR require that a defendant be expressly informed that a trial may proceed in his absence so that he has foresight of the right which he is waving or whether he can waive that right through his manifest lack of diligence. On 19 May 2022, Swift J certified a question of general public importance regarding what the judicial authority must prove and to what evidential standard. On 13 December 2022, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. Presently, a hearing date is awaited.

Stefan represented Polish judicial authorities in two cases which considered the requisite approach to Article 8 proportionality assessments where there is uncertainty concerning whether the SSHD will permit a requested person to re-enter the UK after extradition or even revoke a grant of settled status.

Stefan represented an Irish court in an extradition request for a British man accused of raping a partner twenty years ago. The requested person had a series of acute physical problems and learning difficulties which meant that the Court had to consider whether extradition would be oppressive. There were significant delays owing to the fact that the complainant suffered a fall and lost her memory for several years. The case considered reporting restrictions / anonymity for complainants of sexual offences in extradition proceedings. The Judge considered the circumstances in which the Court can and should anonymise the name of a requested person where he would be afforded such anonymity in the requesting state.

Led by James Hines KC, Stefan represented the CPS in a recent Administrative Court case which considered whether the High Court or an extradition ticketed judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court can review the taking of consent when it is alleged that incorrect or insufficient legal advice was given.

Stefan represented a Hungarian court seeking the requested person’s extradition to stand trial in respect of money laundering offences. The requested person, who is of Cameroonian/African descent, claimed that the systematic racism and hostile environment within Hungary and, in particular, the criminal justice system and prison system, would result treatment contrary to A3 ECHR. The considered recent political developments in Hungary and adverse findings made by various UN bodies and NGOs. Permission to appeal was refused at an oral hearing.

Stefan represented one of the requested persons in the first challenge to (general) prison conditions in Poland since 2012. The Court considered expert evidence and open source material which suggested that some of those detained in Poland had fewer than three metres square of personal space. Nevertheless, the Court did not find sufficient cause to seek further information under the Aranyosi process.

Stefan represented a Slovak judicial authority where he successfully argued that the POCA money laundering (s. 327-329) offences are extra-territorial in nature and the correct test for purposes of dual criminality is whether the conduct constitutes an offence and not whether it would be charged in England and Wales in similar circumstances.

Stefan appeared on behalf of the Irish judicial authority at first instance and on appeal in a series of cases concerning the validity of Irish extradition requests in England and Wales following Exit Day and IP Completion Day. The challenge, which was raised under the heads of validity and abuse of process, concerned the Republic’s general opt out of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice per Protocol 21 to the TEU/TFEU and the Union’s competence to reach agreements on behalf of Ireland in these specific areas. Owing to a ruling of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU in November 2021, which confirmed the Union’s competence to conclude law enforcement and security cooperation measures on behalf of Ireland in both the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement 2019 and UK/EU Trade and Cooperation 2020, the point did not require final adjudication in this jurisdiction.

Stefan represented a requested person in one of the first Part 1 cases in which the underlying international instrument was the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 instead of the EAW Framework Decision. Given that his client was sought for purposes of prosecution and remanded in custody, Stefan challenged how UK judges should approach the principle of proportionality per Art. 597 of the TACA and the effect of the new joint EU/UK declaration on proportionality.

Stefan represented an individual sought in Luxembourg on suspicion of various offences of fraud. Stefan challenged whether the EAW provided sufficient detail to be considered valid and whether some conduct met the dual criminality test. He also argued that the Luxembourg authorities had not made a charging decision. Stefan succeeded in securing his client’s discharge in respect of some offences. The case is currently on appeal in relation to the others.

Stefan represents a requested person accused of homicide in Greece. He challenges extradition on human rights grounds including inadequate prison conditions as a result of chronic overcrowding and high rates of inter-prisoner violence within the Greek prison estate (A3 ECHR), restrictions on the requested person’s right to apply for bail if extradited (A5 ECHR) and the Greek prosecutor’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the alleged criminality (A6 ECHR). He secured a discharge at first instance. The Greek authorities have appealed the district judge’s decision.

Stefan represented a Spanish court which sought the requested person’s extradition in respect of a series of violent robberies committed when he was seventeen. By the time at which the EAW was issued, the requested person had turned eighteen and the case turned on whether the wrong court in Spain had issued the EAW, thereby, rendering it invalid ab initio. Stefan successfully relied on recent Court of Justice and domestic case law concerning the circumstances in which a decision to issue an EAW can be challenged in the Executing State to persuade the judge not to review the circumstances in which the EAW.

Instructed by the Serious Fraud Division as a disclosure junior on a 13-handed cheat of the public Revenue involving a VAT loss of £34m. Given the volume of material, Stefan was instructed to attend trial. 9 defendants convicted. Confiscation proceedings are on-going. Southwark Crown Court.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-49639133

Advised on the new ‘assaulting an emergency worker’ offence as well as the powers conferred on PCSOs following a recent change in legislation. CPS offering no evidence on the indictment. Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Following guilty pleas at PTPH to six dwelling burglaries and threats to cause criminal damage, Stefan obtained a sentence of four years’ custody for a prolific domestic burglar accused of a series of category one offences. Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Stefan represented a Romanian judicial authority in an appeal in which the High Court considered whether the first instance judge was correct to find that the requested person was a fugitive at common law. Fordham J considered the different appellate authorities on fugitive status and concluded that a lack of a prohibition on a requested person from leaving the requesting state before a conviction becomes final does not preclude a finding of fugitivity. The Court also considered how it should measure the seriousness of conduct where the penalty imposed in the requesting state is substantially different and greater than in comparable circumstances in England & Wales and when, per §13 of Poland v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551, the Court may examine what sentence a domestic court would have imposed.

Stefan represented a Lithuanian judicial authority in an appeal concerning extraterritorial dual criminality (section 64(4) EA). The case turned on the meaning and scope of section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 through which Parliament incorporated the offence created in Article 5 of the UN (Palermo) Convention on Transnational Organized Crime 2000, ergo participation in an organised crime group. To furnish a domestic court with jurisdiction to try a defendant in equivalent circumstances, Fordham J held that a person must participate in some of an organised crime group’s activities in England & Wales; it was not enough that another member of the organised crime group participated in activities in England & Wales whilst the person’s own activities all took place abroad.