Louisa Collins

Year of Call: 2004

Louisa Collins is a barrister specialising in extradition, international and serious crime and human rights law. Louisa is ranked in Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for her extradition work.

Please fill out the form below and either Louisa 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


Louisa is a barrister specialising in extradition, human rights and serious crime.  Louisa has been listed in Chambers and Partners since 2017 and is ranked as a band 3 leader in the field of extradition at the London Bar.

"She provides very clear advice and is very impressive."

Chambers and Partners 2019.

"Exceptional client handling skills" and "very impressive written arguments."

Chambers and Partners 2018.

Louisa is also ranked in Legal 500 in tier 3 for her work in international crime and extradition.

‘Extremely experienced and a pleasure to work with.’

Legal 500 2019.

She is an experienced advocate who specialises in extradition law and gained her experience after she completed a secondment with the CPS Extradition Unit in 2007 – 2008. Since then, she has built a first class reputation and has been instructed in the most complex and serious extradition matters as a junior alone or led.

"Her skeletons are just so professional and she is one of those people that when she goes before a judge she commands the respect of all the judges there."

"Very persuasive and very knowledgeable, she's firm in her approach when necessary."

Chambers and Partners 2017.

Professional Panel Appointments:

  • Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advocate panel: Level 2
  • Specialist Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Extradition panel: Level 2.

Professional Memberships

  • Extradition Lawyers Association.

Crime + View All Specialist Areas

Louisa has particular expertise in dealing with highly complex cases involving issues of disclosure, PII and confiscation. She was instructed as disclosure counsel by the Crown in relation to a CCRC referral to the Court of Appeal to review historic disclosure failings in a case involving a complex drug conspiracy and corrupt police officers.

Cases of Note

Sachanek v Poland [2014] EWHC 510

Louisa appeared for the respondent in this appeal which raised s14, Article 8 and a ground against the costs order imposed by the district judge.

Matuszewski v Poland[2014] EWHC 357

Louisa successfully appealed against an extradition order on Article 8 grounds.

Juchniewicz v Poland[2014] EWHC 509 (Admin)

Louisa appeared for the respondent in this appeal brought on Article 8 grounds.

Public Prosecutor’s Office, Milan v Marisa Merico [2011] EWHC 1857 (Admin)

Louisa successfully defended in this matter both at first instance and in the Divisional Court. Ms Merico was discharged pursuant to section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. This case raised a number of difficult and sensitive issues due to the offences arising out of Ms Merico’s links to the Calabrian mafia, the ‘Ndrangheta.

Targosinski v Polish Judicial Authority [2011] EWHC 312 (Admin)

Louisa appeared on behalf of the Respondent Polish judicial authority in this appeal brought on human rights grounds (article 3 of the ECHR) regarding prison conditions. The appeal was dismissed.

Krzysztof Ras v Polish Judicial Authority (Administrative Court)

Louisa appeared on behalf of the Polish judicial authority in this judicial review against a refusal to adjourn proceedings by a district judge and substantive appeal against extradition. Permission for judicial review was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Gorniak v Polish Judicial Authority [2011] EWHC 513 (Admin)

Louisa appeared alone on behalf of the Respondent Polish judicial authority in this appeal brought on human rights and medical grounds as the requested person was considered to be a suicide risk. The appeal was dismissed.