Amelia Nice

Year of Call: 2006

"An excellent practitioner renowned for her combined interests of family law and extradition matters" "She's got a lovely style of advocacy and is particularly good with vulnerable clients."

Chambers and Partners 2018 for Extradition.

Please fill out the form below and either Amelia or one of our highly qualified Clerks will respond within 48 hours.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Alternatively, you can call us on +44 (0) 207 332 5400


Amelia is a barrister specialising in extradition, international family and public law, and is ranked in Chambers and Partners as a leader in the field of Extradition at the London Bar.

"An "all-rounder" who attracts praise for her legal acumen and expert client handling skills. She has developed particular expertise in handling extradition matters involving children, particularly those concerning child abduction and trafficking. "

Chambers and Partners 2018.

Amelia is regularly instructed in international family law cases, including public and private law proceedings in respect of children. She has particular experience with FGM  Protection Orders and with Surrogacy. Her practice includes child abduction, relocation, forced marriage, stranded spouse cases and wardship proceedings. Amelia is increasingly instructed to represent children and their interests.

 "Very dependable and has a gentle touch with vulnerable clients."

"She adopts a warm approach to extremely anxious people but also has a very strong legal mind." 


Amelia advises and represents requested persons and requesting judicial authorities and governments in extradition proceedings at first instance, in appeals in the High Court and Supreme Court and in applications and appeals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Particular experience involves cases concerning the separation of parents from children, child abduction and trafficking. In 2014 she was invited to submit evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Extradition Law on extradition overlapping proceedings also involving family, international family and trafficking.

"She has developed a subsequent expertise in handling extradition matters involving children, particularly those concerning child abduction and trafficking. Sources praise her for the way she communicates with vulnerable witnesses and defendants. "


"She's extremely straightforward in her approach and clients love her."


Additional Information

  • Amelia is a member of the Bar Council Equality and Diversity Committee.


  • Amelia writes and gives seminars and provides training on matters related to her practice areas in both extradition and international family law.

Professional Memberships

  • Extradition Lawyers Association.
  • Family Law Bar Association.
  • Association of Lawyers for Children.
  • Bar Pro Bono Unit.
  • Child Abduction Lawyers Association.

Extradition & International

Amelia specialises in Extradition proceedings in first instance hearings at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, and in appeals to the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court.

She has extensive experience of extradition proceedings to all members of the EAW and also represents in extradition requests in Category 2 jurisdictions including Albania, Australia, Canada, Pakistan, South Africa and the USA.

She is easy to deal with and very good on Article 8 crossover work."

"Her analytical skills are praiseworthy." 


Recent extradition instruction concerns cases concerning Article 8, and the separation of parents from children, child abduction and trafficking. Thereafter, she is instructed in all types of cases involving violent crime including cases of murder, rape and historic sex abuse allegations, people trafficking and complex fraud.

She advises individuals in relation to Interpol Red Notices and their removal and the potential use of Rule 39 applications to the ECHR.

Amelia has a busy Appellate practice and has appeared in a great many extradition cases before the Administrative and Divisional courts in cases dealing with Human Rights, abuse of process and political corruption. She has conducted in excess of 500 extradition proceedings to all members of the EAW scheme including Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Romania, Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain, and Belgium.

She also appears in requests concerning Category 2 jurisdictions including Albania, Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa and the USA.

Family, Children & International Family

Amelia is instructed in public and private law children cases in the County Court and High Court including public law care proceedings, child abduction, relocation, stranded spouse, forced marriage and contact proceedings.

Amelia also has an expanding practice in surrogacy and modern family law. 

Amelia is also instructed in those cases where international family matters coincide with extradition proceedings in respect of child abductions and her advice is increasingly sought in representing the interests of the children who are involved.

Judicial Review & Public Law

Amelia acts and advises in judicial review proceedings. She has been instructed in cases concerning challenges to the issue and execution of search warrants and in judicial review proceedings concerning education law, prisoner’s rights and immigration. She was junior in the case of Kammash and Ors, a large judicial review action brought by Iraqi nationals alleging mistreatment whilst in the custody of the British army.

Mediation & Settlement

Amelia is a trained mediator. She undertakes a wide range of mediation instruction in the context of civil claims, in particular, those arising in respect of education and children. She is a trainer for ADR-ODR.

Cases of Note

Owda v Greece [2017] EWHC 1174 (Admin)

There was no real risk that a person requested by Greece on suspicion of human trafficking would be transferred to either of two Greek prisons in which conditions had been held to violate ECHR art.3.

Czuc v Slovak Republic, 17 May 2017

Extradition appeal allowed on the basis of passage of time oppression and injustice. The Appellant’s extradition was sought by the Slovak Republic in respect of a very old allegation and the Appellant is now a man in poor health.

PA v Portugal [2017] EWHC 331 (Admin)

Successfully represented the Appellant on the principle that the lower court must have information about her child. Best interests; Care proceedings; Children; Delay; Extradition; Fresh evidence; Fugitive offenders; Ill health; Medical treatment; Right to respect for private and family life.

Weszka v Poland [2017] EWHC 168 (Admin)

Successful appeal against an order extradition made when the person was unrepresented. Activation; Extradition hearings; Fresh evidence; Fugitive offenders; Litigants in person; Right to respect for private and family life; Suspended sentences.

Iacob v Romania [2017] EWHC 155 (Admin)

European arrest warrants; Particulars; Sentencing; Theft.

Lagocki v Poland [2015] EWHC 3641 (Admin)

Divisional court case regarding hearings in absence.

Czach v Poland [2016] EWHC 1993 (Admin)

Guideline case re the approach to be followed in relation to applications for a stay in extradition cases that involved issues related to the Extradition Act 2003 s.11 and s.14 and ECHR art.8 pending the resolution of an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in Wisniewski v Poland [2016] EWHC 386 (Admin), which raised those issues.

Matusiak v Poland [2016] EWHC 1631 (Admin)

Dual criminality.

Polish Judicial Authorities v Ors [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)

Divisional Court test case on the application of Article 8.

Sas v Poland [2015] EWHC 648 (Admin)

Mr Justice King allowed an extradition appeal in relation to an EAW on Article 8 grounds in relation to a 53 year old woman.

ST v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania [2014] EWHC 4397 (Admin)

Mr J Collins allowed an extradition appeal in relation to an EAW on Article 8 grounds. Although the Appellant was sought to serve a prison sentence in relation to various offences committed in 2004 and 2007, including a serious assault, the interests of his 5 year old daughter who suffers from a very rare heart condition had not been full taken into account by the District Judge.

Puc v Poland [2014] EWHC 3455 (Admin)

It had been disproportionate under the ECHR art.8 to order the extradition of a Polish woman who had received a two-year suspended sentence in Poland, and who had served 14 months there on remand. The district judge had been wrong to say that she was a fugitive either by coming to the United Kingdom, or failing to notify the UK probation service of a change of address.

Croatia v Dokic, September 2014

On 16 September 2014, District Judge Ikram discharged two European Arrest Warrants (‘EAW’) from Croatia for the extradition as an abuse of process. In an extraordinary set of circumstances, Croatia issued the EAWs against Mr Dokic, having previously convicted his identical twin brother in Croatia of almost identical frauds. Those frauds involved the twin posing as Mr Dokic and conducting frauds in his name. The Croatian Judicial Authority failed over a period of 10 months to properly respond to the factual questions raised by Mr Dokic and by the extradition court.

B v Lithuania, 3 March 2014, unreported

Successfully represented a mother to a young child and baby sought to serve a sentence in Lithuania. Case discharged by Mr J Ouseley on Article 8 grounds, in particular, that the mother would be separated from the baby.

R (Jugan) v Romania [2014] EWHC 460 (Admin)

Instructed by the National Crime Agency (NCA) in a case in which it was held that a certificate issued by the Serious Organised Crime Agency under the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(7) was valid, notwithstanding the use of an electronic signature system.

Ihnat v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 626 (Admin)

Successfully represented the Appellant in a case discharged on the basis that the domestic amnesty in place covered some of the offences and thereafter that the passage of time rendered extradition unjust.

Aleksynas & Ors v Lithuania, Divisional Court, [2014] EWHC 437

Lead case before Divisional Court address prison conditions in Lithuania. Represented Appellant P who’s appeal was allowed and EAW discharged.

B v Poland, April 2014

Acting for single mother sought on an EAW but who is also engaged in Care Proceedings in this country. The Appellant was discharged.

S v Poland, December 2013

Successful appeal on behalf of a single mother. Wilkie J paid particular attention to the information about S’s background (domestic violence) and that the impact on her daughter who, though a teenager, would be such that the whole stratum of family life would be destroyed.

Jasek v Poland, December 2013 [2013] EWHC 4186 (Admin)

Represented the Polish IJA in a case raising discrimination and the filing and service of appeal notices. The appeal was dismissed; Article 14 not engaged as the Appellant was not a British citizen.

B v Poland, December 2013

Represented the Polish IJA; B was sought for offence amounting to kidnap and torture. He raised Article 8, particularly in respect of his daughter who had been born with a genetic disorder. Appeal was dismissed.

Neuman v Poland, March 2013 [2013] EWHC 605 (Admin)

Successful appeal on behalf of N who was sought to serve a short prison sentence; extradition found to be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

Wolokowicz & Ors v Poland & Ors [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin)

Leading authority on the risk of suicide in extradition proceedings, including argument on article 3 ECHR and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003

Pomiechowski v Poland [2012] UKSC 20

Leading authority on what constitutes valid service and the discretion of the courts to extend time for filing and service in the case of British citizens.

Kolanowski v Poland, [2009] EWHC 1509 (Admin)

Conduct described in a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) constituted an extradition offence and the fact that the individual concerned suffered from a heart condition was insufficient in the circumstances to make his extradition oppressive.

Hewitt & Woodward v Spain [2009] EWHC 2158 (Admin)

EAWS in respect of H and W were sufficiently specified. The issues raised as to one of the appellant’s fitness to plead were not sufficient to prevent extradition and could be dealt with by the trial court.

R (Faisaltex Ltd & 6 Ors) (Claimants) v (1) Preston Crown Court (First defendant) (2) Chief Constable of Lancashire (Second defendant) (3) HMRC (Interested party) (2008) [2008] EWHC 2832 (Admin)

A case concerning challenges to multiple search warrants.

R (Kammash & Os) v MOD

Judicial review of adequacy of Royal Military Police investigation into abuse allegations made by 7 Iraqi citizens in 2007.