Amanda Bostock

Call: 2008

"… a legal mind that is second to none."

Chambers UK 2023: Extradition

“… always thoroughly prepared, and an excellent, robust advocate.”

Legal 500 2024 International Crime and Extradition

“Amanda is extremely bright and does a top-notch job.”

Chambers UK 2024: Extradition

“A tenacious advocate who grasps the issue quickly. She is always impressive.”

Chambers UK 2022: Extradition

“A meticulous eye for detail.” Legal 500 2022:

International Law & Extradition

Amanda Bostock is experienced counsel specialising in crime, extradition, professional discipline and inquests.

She is highly ranked in Legal 500 and Chambers UK in respect of both her legal knowledge and advocacy skills. She is particularly noted for her attention to detail and cross-examination.

Amanda has appeared in the Supreme Court in the lead extradition case on diplomatic assurances and regularly appears in the Divisional and Administrative Courts both alone and led. She has particular insight in relation to mutual legal assistance, having spent a number of years advising the Home Office.

Alongside her busy practice, Amanda sits as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Court).

Legal Expertise


Extradition overview

Amanda is a renowned extradition practitioner acting for both foreign governments and those seeking to resist extradition. Having been appointed as a researcher to the Home Office Extradition Review and spending 12 months’ seconded to the CPS extradition unit she has a depth of academic understanding which is unrivalled. She has acted in many of the guideline authorities in this niche area of law.

Notable Extradition cases

Soares v Brazil (first instance)

Amanda successfully obtained the release of the Requested Person who was wanted to serve a sentence for murder in Brazil on the basis of inadequate prison conditions.

Vascenkovs v Latvia [2023] EWHC 2830

Acting for the Latvian authorities, Amanda successfully defeated arguments suggesting the assessment of proportionality in extradition cases had changed as a result of Brexit.

Brown v Nigeria (first instance)

Acting for the Requested person, Amanda persuaded the Court to refuse to extradite him to stand trial for fraud due to conditions proved to be ‘harsh and life threatening’ in custodial settings throughout Nigeria.

Nikolov v Bulgaria [2022] EWHC 2877 (Admin)

Amanda acted for the Applicant and was successful in overturning the order for his extradition based on a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Nemeth & Others v Hungary [2022] EWHC 2032 (Admin)

As leading junior for the Hungarian authorities, Amanda successfully defeated arguments asserting judicial corruption and ethnic discrimination

Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14

Led by James Hines QC acting for Hungary in guideline case on diplomatic assurances post Brexit.

Kalinowski v Poland [2019] EWHC 3734 (Admin)

Amanda successfully overturned an order for the extradition of K who was wanted for a stabbing in Slovenia which caused life threatening injuries. She succeeded due to a technical argument centred on dual criminality and the validity of the request.

Fuzesi & Balasz v Hungary [2018] EWHC 1885 (Admin)

Led by James Hines QC for the Hungarian authorities, this case ensures extradition between Hungary and the UK can continue as a result of assurances guaranteeing adequate conditions in prison.

Sobczyk v Poland [2017] EWHC 3353 (Admin)

Led by Helen Malcom KC, Amanda argued that culpable delay by foreign authorities should weigh in the balance against extradition even in the case of fugitive offenders.

Fox v Germany [2017] EWHC 3396 (Admin)

The guideline authority in relation to s.12A of the Extradition Act for German cases establishes that the decision to try can be made by a prosecutor. This decision applies to all cases from Germany and has made the s.12A bar obsolete.

Klenovszki v Hungary [2017] EWHC 2560 (Admin) 

Divisional Court consideration of whether assurances provided by the Hungarian government had been breached.

Purcell v Belgium [2017] EWHC 1981 (Admin)

The guideline authority considering whether Belgium prison conditions comply with human rights standards.

Sulaiman v France [2016] EWHC 2868 (Admin)

Representing the French authorities as junior alone against leading Counsel in a complex case concerning abuse of process, extra-territoriality and specialty.

Puceviciene & Others v Lithuania & Others [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin)

Led by John Hardy KC before the then Lord Chief Justice (Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd). This case provides the definitive guidance on the practical operation of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 (in relation to all extradition cases) intended to ensure that extradition only takes place when the requesting country has made a clear decision to charge and try.

Szegfu v Court of Pecs, Hungary [2015] EWHC 1764 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 273

Instructed alone before the Divisional Court including the now Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon. This case provides the first and only judicial guidance and interpretation of s.26 (5) of the Extradition Act 2003 relating to the time limits in which to bring an extradition appeal under section 26(4).

Zagorskij v Vilnius County Court, Lithuania [2015] EWHC 2335 (Admin)

Before the Divisional Court including Lord Thomas of Cymgiedd LCJ as junior alone against leading and junior Counsel opposing extradition on the grounds of likely ill treatment of homosexual men within the Lithuanian prison estate.

Durdevic v Croatia

Amanda secured the extradition of a war criminal to Croatia.

Inquests & Inquiries overview

Amanda regularly appears on behalf of public authorities and the emergency services representing their interests and challenging areas of concern during coronial proceedings. Amanda is experienced in Article 2 and jury inquests and in navigating the necessity for and content of prevention of future death reports.

Notable Inquests & Inquiries cases

Inquest into the death of KOH

Amanda acted for a housing association facing criticism for the death of a largely immobile resident at one of their properties in a fire. Upon conclusion, no inadequacy of care provision was found and no criticism of Amanda’s client was made.

Inquest into the death of AF

Amanda successfully acted to exclude the actions of the MPS from jury deliberations and to avoid a finding of article 2 engagement in this complex case concerning an individual suffering from alcoholism and mental health difficulties. AF was a missing person at the time of his death and the timing of police action was the subject of intense scrutiny prior to Amanda’s successful submission in respect of causation.

Inquest into the death of JF

Acted on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service in a case involving suspicions of third-party involvement where the adequacy of the police response was under consideration. No concerns were ultimately found.

Inquest into the death of DM

Representing the London Fire Brigade as an interested party where concerns in relation to the adequacy of telecare services in assisted living placements were being raised in the context of preventing future deaths.

Professional Discipline overview

Amanda is experienced in representing those facing disciplinary proceedings from within the emergency services and the medical profession deploying her well honed witness handling skills to ensure the right outcomes.

Notable Professional Discipline cases


Acting on behalf of the Officer, Amanda successfully persuaded the panel that all disputed allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace were not proved.


Acting on behalf of an officer who faced allegation of sexual harassment within the workplace. Following extensive witness examination and submissions, no sexual element was found and the officer was able to retain his employment.


Representing a nurse who, whilst a finding of impairment was made after a repeat incident, retained his job alongside receiving a caution.


Amanda successfully had the suspension order against MP replaced with a conditions of practice order after a misunderstanding in relation to the amounts of medication to be administered had resulted in his immediate suspension. This allowed MP to return to the UK and to the nursing profession.

Crime overview

Amanda’s practice encompasses all areas with a particular emphasis in violent crime.

Recent instructions include led junior in the case of R v Angela Ayre (Luton Crown Court) in which the 74 year old Defendant was accused of murdering her partner of over twenty years because of a dispute centred around his urinating in their conservatory whilst drunk. After trial and detailed defence analysis and challenge of blood patterns and pathology reports, the Defendant was acquitted of murder, being convicted instead of manslaughter, the defence team having successfully demonstrated no intention to cause serious harm.

Prison Law overview

Amanda has significant experience in representing individuals before the parole board and during prison disciplinary adjudications.

Zabolotnyi v Hungary
[2021] UKSC 14
Led by James Hines QC acting for Hungary in guideline case on diplomatic assurances post Brexit.

Kalinowski v Poland
[2019] EWHC 3734 (Admin)
Successfully defeated extradition order for Kalinowski in extra-territorial stabbing.

Fuzesi v Hungary
[2018] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
Led by James Hines QC in leading case on Hungarian prison assurances.

Sobczyk v Poland
[2017] EWHC 3353 (Admin)
Led by Helen Malcolm QC acting for Sobczyk in Divisional Court consideration of delays by foreign authorities alongside fugitive status.

Szegfu v Hungary
[2016] 1 WLR322
Instructed alone for Hungary before the Divisional Court in first interpretation of S.26(5) EA ’03 for out of time appeals

Puceviciene v Lithuania
[2016] 1 WLR 4937
Led by John Hardy KC for IJAs in the guideline overarching s.12A authority.

Sulaiman v France
[2016] EWHC 2868 (Admin)
Successfully acted for France against Mark Summers KC in complicated validity, specialty and abuse of process case.

“Amanda is extremely bright and does a top-notch job.”  Chambers UK 2024:  Extradition

“Very strong prosecutor, always thoroughly prepared, and an excellent, robust advocate.”  Legal 500 2024:  International Crime and Extradition

Extradition – Legal 500 (Tier One), Chambers UK (Band 2)

“An amazing advocate who has a legal mind that is second to none.” Chambers UK 2023:  Extradition

“Unflappable when in the courtroom.”  Chambers UK 2023:  Extradition

“A tenacious advocate who grasps the issue quickly. She is always impressive.” Chambers UK 2022:  Extradition

“Amanda is a very confident and experienced advocate. She is calm, concise and coherent with a good eye for detail.” Legal 500 2022:  International Law & Extradition

“A meticulous eye for detail.” Legal 500 2022:  International Law & Extradition

“Extremely well versed in the law and has incredibly good advocacy skills. She is extremely well prepared.” Chambers UK 2020: Extradition

“A tenacious advocate who has a great way with clients and a lovely manner.” Chambers UK 2020:  Extradition

Called to the Bar (Lincoln’s Inn) 2008
Bar Vocational Course – Inns of Court School of Law
LLB (Hons) Liverpool

Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Court)

Professional memberships

CPS Specialist Panel for Extradition – Level 4
Extradition Lawyers Association – Committee Member (Court Liaison)
Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum
Criminal Bar Association
European Criminal Bar Association

Prior to joining chambers, Amanda worked in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa advising pro bono in land rights claims, chieftainship disputes and cross border class actions against international mining corporations for inhalation induced silicosis.

In May 2016, South Africa’s High Court granted class- action status to the case in which Amanda was involved to enable around 500,000 miners and their families to seek damages from some of the world’s biggest gold bullion producers for illnesses and death caused by silicosis and tuberculosis as a result of unsafe working conditions.

I, Amanda Bostock, am a data controller and can be contacted at 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH or by telephone on 020 7400 6400 or by email at  My Data Protection Policy can be found below.

All personal data that I process is for the purposes of providing legal services, conducting conflict-checks, marketing, defending potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes, keeping anti-money laundering records, training other barristers and pupils and when providing work-shadowing opportunities, and/or exercising a right to a lien.  The types of data I process vary upon the nature of the legal matter in relation to which I am engaged to advise, but can include names, contact details, biographic details and ‘special category personal data’ (such as details of racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health, sex life and criminal convictions and proceedings).

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, the legal bases upon which I process personal data are (i) the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract, (ii) the processing is necessary to comply with legal obligations to which I am subject, or (iii) the processing is necessary for the legitimate interests set out above, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subjects which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.  When I rely on (iii) legitimate interests, my ‘Legitimate Interests Assessment’ can be found here.  When I process data which has not been obtained directly from the data subject (e.g. personal data contained in evidential materials), it will have been supplied to me as part of my instructions in circumstances covered by legal professional privilege.

Depending upon the circumstances of the case, I may share the personal data with:

  1. my Chambers, which supplies professional and administrative support to my practice;
  2. Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;
  3. my lay and professional clients;
  4. potential witnesses, in particular experts, and friends or family of the data subject;
  5. solicitors, barristers, pupils, mini pupils and other legal representatives;
  6. ombudsmen and regulatory authorities;
  7. current, past or prospective employers;
  8. education and examining bodies;
  9. business associates, professional advisers and trade bodies.

I retain personal data for no longer than 7 years after the case has come to an end or as otherwise required by law.

I do not intend to transfer data to any country which is not either within the European Union, or otherwise permitted by UK data protection legislation.

Under the UK GDPR, data subjects whose personal data I process have the right to request from me access to, and rectification or erasure of, their personal data, the right to the restriction of processing concerning them, the right to object to processing as well as the right to data portability.  Data subjects also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (

In cases where there is a contract between me and the data subject, the provision of personal data is a contractual requirement and the data subject is obliged to provide the personal data in order that I can supply legal services.  A failure to provide such data may mean that I will not be able to provide those legal services.

Rev 2.1  29.06.2022

Data Protection Policy

Legitimate Interests Assessment

Related news