In my job as an extradition defence barrister I deal with clients who have been arrested because they are sought by another jurisdiction to stand trial or serve a sentence for offences they have committed there. These offences may have been committed years, or even decades ago. Whilst the public interest in returning requested persons to serve sentences or stand trial for offences they committed is high, it should also be recognised that, in that passage of time, those people have built new lives in England, many of them working, studying, raising families and establishing community ties over years. Therefore, the extradition process, and the consequences of it, can have devastating effects on those requested persons and their families. Whilst spending endless days and night working on those cases, there doesn’t seem to be any time to properly reflect on them. This is what I seek to do now. In particular, I would like to focus on women who have got caught up in the extradition procedure. I have decided to give the reader a glimpse into the workings of the extradition process from the initial arrest. The snap shot in time I would like to focus on is from 1st January 2024 (all new arrests I have been instructed in) to 1st November 2025 (at the time of writing this article).
In that period, I have dealt with 33 new cases involving men and 9 cases involving women. Whilst the wheels of the criminal justice system keep turning and I was, of course, still involved in many other cases which had not completed from the previous year, I will mostly refer to fresh cases which I dealt with in that time. Some of those cases have not yet reached a conclusion. Here are my own observations of the plight of women entangled in this process.
Eight out of nine women I have represented were sought in respect of fraud or other acquisitive crimes. When looking at their background, most had experienced some domestic violence at home when growing up and a disruption to their education. Some were taken into care due to physical or sexual abuse or alcoholism in their own home. Many of them went on to develop unhealthy relationships with men who abused them. Most of them were mothers who never shirked their responsibility towards their children.
Most got caught up in a fraudulent scheme, playing a part assigned by an organiser of that scheme whilst not necessarily gaining financially from it at all. A common such theme was the exploitation of women by those higher up in the chain of criminality by using them to forge signatures on loan agreements from banks. The banks would then issue the loans which would never be re-paid. The money would be taken by the organisers of those schemes. In many instances, the women claimed that they never saw any of that money. Whilst they were charged or convicted of wrongdoing, it is important to reflect on their own vulnerabilities and their roles in those schemes. The English extradition courts do not assess the rights or wrongs of foreign convictions in these instances however a snippet of one client’s statement gives a flavour of what could have really happened: “I have been accused of crimes that were actually committed by my ex-husband, and in some instances, I was forced by him into participating in the offense listed in the warrant. I was a victim of domestic abuse and was forced to engage in fraudulent activities under duress, fearing harm to both myself and my child.”
There came a point in each of those women’s lives where they managed to leave their life behind them and come to England to start afresh. Since arriving in England, some many years ago, none of them have committed any offences since. They have enrolled their children in schools and have all been working, aside from those who experienced health issues and were no longer able to work. In many instances, despite the horrors of their own childhoods, they were providing loving homes for their children, giving them everything that they never had.
At one point in these women’s journeys came a knock on the door. The police. That knock would change their lives forever. Within hours they would find themselves in a cell in Westminster Magistrates Court, where all the extradition cases begin. It is there I or my colleagues would meet them for the first time. None of these women would contemplate returning to the country seeking their return. Why would they? Most had escaped abusive relationships, lack of employment and lack of prospects for their children. Being in England had enabled them and their children to flourish. For many, years had gone by since they left, each year bringing a sense of stability and purpose. They had already come so far in what they had achieved in their lives. Each woman had her own story to tell but I can’t help but be intrigued by the similarities.
The cases I find the most challenging are sole carer cases; cases where the requested person is the sole carer of their child and if they are extradited there is no alternative but for the child to be placed in local authority care. I have dealt with a large number of such cases. The impact of extradition is all the greater given what is at stake and this is something I keep at the forefront of my mind, always.
Last year, I met a client, arrested on an Arrest Warrant, she was her child’s sole carer. This little family unit’s circumstances were such that this woman was the only primary carer this child had ever know. The child had not had any contact with his father since he was a baby. All other family members were deceased. The client was not granted bail initially and when she was (some weeks later) ultimately the prosecution appealed that decision. This meant that she was in custody until the High Court determined whether bail should be granted. I was determined to secure her release on bail because the toll that her absence would have had on her child in that time would have been immeasurable. Thankfully, the High Court Judge agreed and conditional bail was granted. That woman was her child’s whole world and, due to the remand in custody, the child had to stay with family friends. This triggered a mental health crisis in that child which continued to have longer term effects on him. A year earlier, I was in a similar situation, where I represented a woman who was sought by another jurisdiction on an accusation warrant for child abduction (of her own child) and remanded in custody. She had taken her child, a baby, because she claimed the father was physically abusing her. She was still breastfeeding her baby. Upon being granted conditional bail by the District Judge, the prosecution appealed that decision. I will never forget her words to me pleading to be released as soon as possible, she said: “If I don’t get bail, I will lose the ability to breastfeed my baby.” I found the prosecution’s decision to appeal the grant of bail so shockingly baseless, given the circumstances. We had provided an address and a financial guarantee (security) amongst a host of other conditions. Hearing all the arguments for and against, the District Judge granted conditional bail in all the circumstances. Nevertheless, a bail appeal was lodged by the prosecution and ultimately the prosecution withdrew it. By that time, the client could no longer breast feed her baby. She consented to her return to the country she came from to resume her life with her baby and her husband.
I dealt with two other sole carer cases. One woman, having been convicted of fraud over ten years ago, had over four years left to serve in the event of her extradition. She lived alone with her child, who had additional needs and required significant support in his daily life. That client was not only her child’s biggest and only support but she was also working part time and suffered from her own health problems. My other sole carer case involved a woman who had been a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her ex husband with whom she shared a child. That child had no contact with his father. This client’s extradition would have meant the child would have been placed in local authority accommodation with no family nearby or ability to retain his culture and language.
There were strong similarities between all of these women. Their resolve to ensure the best education for their children and a safe environment for them to grow into good people was unwavering. Despite the chaos of their previous lives, it was obvious to me that they had the determination and grit to do what’s best for their children and to build a successful future for themselves.
Ania Grudzinska, Barrister, Guernica 37 Chambers
