PAUL GARLICK QC

Barrister 

TO DISCUSS YOUR MATTER

Paul Garlick QC
T: 0044 (0) 20 3976 2452
E: pgqc@scarmans.co.uk

 

EXPERTISE
Paul Garlick QC practices in the fields of extradition, human rights and corporate responsibility for human rights violations. He is actively involved with advising corporate bodies in connection with compliance with their responsibilities and obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. He is a member of the American Bar Association’s Advisory Board on Business and Human Rights Project.

In 2012, Paul was leading counsel for the defence in the criminal prosecution of Kweku Adoboli. The allegations in this case involved one of the largest losses incurred by a bank as a result of an alleged “rogue trader” in the history of the UK. The losses that were sustained as a result of the actions of the traders at UBS bank amounted to $2.3 billion. Mr Adoboli’s defence team argued that he was not guilty of fraud as the bank had encouraged the traders at the bank to trade in the manner that led to the losses being incurred.

Since 2006, Paul has been an International Expert to the International Academy of Environmental Sciences, advising the Directive Council on matters of international environmental law.

In 2011, Paul was appointed as one of the members of the Expert Committee on EU Criminal Law Policy at the European Commission. He is a visiting lecturer at The University of The Hague, where he teaches international criminal law and human rights.

In the field of extradition, Paul has significant experience of handling both European Arrest Warrant cases (category 1) and non-EAW extradition cases (category 2) in the UK. He has a depth of experience of acting in politically motivated proceedings for high-profile individuals, having successfully represented one of the former Directors of the Yukos Oil Company in an extradition request by the Russian Federation. He has recently successfully defended two clients against extradition requests by Turkey. He has advised and acted on behalf of the governments of the United States, and the majority of the Commonwealth countries and member states of the European Union.

Paul acted as leading counsel in a successful appeal in the High Court against a District Judge’s decision to order the extradition of a Romanian national pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The appeal centered on the application of the new 2009 Framework Decision on retrial rights for those convicted of an extradition offence in their absence. The judgment is reported as Ernest-Francisc Bohm v Romanian Judicial Authority [2011] EWHC 2671 (Admin).

Chambers and Partners commended Paul as “a highly regarded extradition barrister regularly engaged in matters with significant human rights components, offering particular expertise in cases that focus on Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.”

NOTABLE CASES


S-L (Restraint Order: External Confiscation Order), Re Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 05 July 1995, [1996] Q.B. 272; [1995] 3 W.L.R. 830. Bank accounts; Restraint orders. Drug trafficking; restraint orders; London bank accounts; foreign proceedings in rem; order not limited to in personam proceedings only.

R. v Governor of Brixton Prison Ex p. Levin House of Lords, 19 June 1997, [1997] A.C. 741; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 117. Admissibility; Computer output; Extradition.

Cuoghi v Governor of Brixton Prison Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 15 July 1997, [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1346. Appeals; Evidence; Extradition; Habeas corpus; Jurisdiction.

R. v Emmett (Brian) House of Lords, 13 November 1997, [1998] A.C. 773; [1997] 3 W.L.R. 1119. Confiscation orders; Criminal appeals; Drug trafficking.

Ismail, Re House of Lords, 29 July 1998, [1999] 1 A.C. 320; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 495. Extradition; Warrants.

Germany v Kumar (No.1) Queen's Bench Division, 15 December 1999, [2000] Crim. L.R. 504. Breach of trust; Delay; extradition to Germany; Habeas corpus; Theft.

R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Norgren Divisional Court, 18 February 2000, [2000] Q.B. 817; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 181. Insider dealing; Procedural impropriety; Secretaries of State; extradition to the United States.

R. (on the application of Saifi) v Governor of Brixton Prison Divisional Court, 21 December 2000, [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1134; [2001] 4 All E.R. 168. Admissibility; Burden of proof; Evidence; India; Murder; Translations.

Friend v Civil Aviation Authority (No.2) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 18 July 2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1204; [2001] 4 All E.R. 385. Breach of contract; Estoppel; Striking out; Tortious liability; Unfair dismissal.

Sutej v Governor of Holloway Prison (No.1) Queen's Bench Division, 31 July 2003, [2003] EWHC 1940 (QB). Habeas corpus; good faith; accusation not made in good faith or interests of justice; effect of ulterior motive of complainant.

Wood v Germany Queen's Bench Division, 8 March 2005, [2005] EWHC 385 (QB). Extradition proceedings; Germany; Habeas corpus; Time.

La Torre v Italy Divisional Court, 20 June 2007, [2007] EWHC 1370 (Admin); [2007] Extradition L.R. 185. An alleged offender whose extradition to Italy was sought had not shown that the passage of time would make his extradition unjust or oppressive.

Hines v Secretary of State for the Home Department Divisional Court, 26 January 2010, [2010] EWHC 69 (Admin). The two-month period under the Extradition Act 1989 s.16 was only a minimum period before an application for discharge from custody could be made, rather than an outer limit to the time within which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had to make a decision.

Bohm v Romania Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 07 October 2011, [2011] EWHC 2671 (Admin). Where the Extradition Act 2003 s.20 applied to a potential extraditee to Romania because he had been convicted in absentia and sentenced to over two years' imprisonment, if the judge then found that he had not deliberately absented himself from the trial which gave rise to the conviction, then he would not be extraditable as, under Romanian law, there was no automatic and unqualified right to a retrial.

Regina v Adoboli. In 2012, Paul was leading counsel for the defence in the criminal prosecution of Kweku Adoboli. The allegations in this case involved one of the largest losses incurred by a bank as a result of an alleged “rogue trader” in the history of the UK. The losses that were sustained as a result of the actions of the traders at UBS bank amounted to $2.3 billion. Mr Adoboli’s defence team argued that he was not guilty of fraud as the bank had encouraged the traders at the bank to trade in the manner that led to the losses being incurred.

Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago Privy Council (Trinidad and Tobago), 25 February 2015, [2015] UKPC 8; [2015] 1 W.L.R. 963. This appeal involved the question of whether the appellant's sentence of 13 years' imprisonment for a serious drugs offence, committed in 1998, should be reduced by six years to take into account the time he had spent on remand in custody in Trinidad before his conviction.

W v Ministry of Justice Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 14 July 2015, [2015] EWCA Civ 742; [2015] 3 W.L.R. 1909. This appeal involved a claim for damages against the Lord Chancellor for breach of human rights by a trial judge, whose errors had led to the overturning of a conviction for rape.