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).
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.
Amanda acted for the Requested Person who successfully defeated an extradition request for manslaughter/death by dangerous driving on the basis of both forum and lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Had the Judge not discharged on this dual basis, she indicated she would also have required the French authorities to allay her fears in relation to inadequate prison conditions and overcrowding.
Acting for Belgium, this case successfully refuted an argument that general Belgian prison conditions were inhumane.
Amanda successfully defeated arguments of political motivation and double jeopardy to secure an extradition order against an individual accused of being a key player in a drug trafficking ring between Albania and Italy.
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.
Acting for the Latvian authorities, Amanda successfully defeated arguments suggesting the assessment of proportionality in extradition cases had changed as a result of Brexit.
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.
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.
Led by James Hines QC acting for Hungary in guideline case on diplomatic assurances post Brexit.
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.
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.
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.
The guideline authority considering whether Belgium prison conditions comply with human rights standards.
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.
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).
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.
Amanda secured the extradition of a war criminal to Croatia.
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.
Amanda was instructed to act in this case concerning the adequacy of mental health care and assessment of suicide risk by NHS trusts and the MPS. Whilst failures were identified in NHS care, the MPS who Amanda represented were not found to have failed in their duties at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amanda successfully appealed the sacking of PC Binala for whom a finding of gross misconduct had erroneously been made in relation to allegedly lying about smelling cannabis in a stop and search and an excessive use of force in responding to the same. In accordance with Amanda’s submissions, the appellate panel found the first instance decision to have been inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable on a number of points and that procedural errors had been made.
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.
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.
Amanda has significant experience in representing individuals before the parole board and during prison disciplinary adjudications.
Brazil v Soares
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.
Nigeria v Brown
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.
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.
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.
“Amanda knows extradition backwards.” Chambers UK 2027: Extradition
“Amanda is a punchy advocate and I say that as a compliment – she gives no quarter.” Chambers UK 2027: Extradition
“Amanda is on top of every detail… ” Chambers UK 2027: Extradition
Amanda is personable and well-liked within the extradition market and is respected for her significant experience and knowledge of the relevant legal principles.” Legal 500 2027: Extradition
“Amanda is an exceptional advocate with a thorough and meticulous approach.” Chambers UK 2026: Extradition
“Amanda is an incredibly capable cross-examiner. She is naturally gifted when it comes to witness handling.” Chambers UK 2026: Extradition
“Amanda is a top quality advocate. She is always well prepared and totally in command of her case. Her witness handling is focused and precise.” Legal 500 2026: International Crime and Extradition
“Her oral arguments are effective, persuasive and pithy.” Legal 500 2026: International Crime and Extradition
“Amanda is an exceptional advocate with a thorough and meticulous approach.” Chambers UK 2026: Extradition
“Amanda is an incredibly capable cross-examiner. She is naturally gifted when it comes to witness handling.” Chambers UK 2026: Extradition
“Amanda is a top quality advocate. She is always well prepared and totally in command of her case. Her witness handling is focused and precise. Her oral arguments are effective, persuasive and pithy.” Legal 500 2026: International Crime and Extradition
“She is steeped in extradition law and is a very effective – and robust.” Legal 500 2025: International Crime & Extradition
“Her advocacy is very impressive meticulously prepared and organised.” Chambers UK 2025: Extradition
“… both a good prosecutor and a good defence advocate – she can turn her mind to both very naturally and very easily. She also has got the ability to communicate with clients at their level.” Chambers UK 2024: Extradition
“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 clerks@3rblaw.com. My Data Protection Policy can be found here.
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 that 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:
I retain personal data for no longer than seven 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, ‘white listed’ by the EU or otherwise permitted by EU law (e.g. to the USA under the provisions of the ‘Privacy Shield’).
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. Three Raymond Buildings has a data protection complaints procedure which applies to chambers and its barristers. You can find a copy of our procedure here.
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 the legal services.
Rev 2.2 – 09.07.2026
| Address | 3 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London WC1R 5BH |
|---|---|
| DX | 237 LDE |
| Opening hours | 08:30 – 18:30 |
| Telephone | +44 (0)20 7400 6400 |
|---|---|
| clerks@3rblaw.com | |
| Senior clerk | Amanda Bostock |
