Ceylon Giles
Ceylon graduated from the University of Westminster in 2021 with a Bachelor’s degree in law and joined the firm shortly after. Since June 2021, she has developed extensive experience in the complex and fast-moving field of extradition law. Ceylon is currently undertaking the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and Master’s in Law alongside her work, further developing her expertise in preparation for qualification as a solicitor.
She regularly prepares and manages cases in both the Magistrates’ Court and the High Court, including complex appeals, re-openings, and cases involving highly vulnerable clients. Ceylon frequently deals with individuals with acute mental health difficulties, neurodiversity, and a wide range of disabilities, and is known for her ability to build trust and rapport with clients and their families during the most stressful periods of their lives.
Her casework spans a broad range of requesting states, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Türkiye, and the United States.
She has worked on several leading and legally significant extradition matters.
Recent Cases:
BCM v Judecatoria Sector 4 Bucharest (Romania) [2025] 11 WLUK 361
Ceylon prepared the successful High Court appeal in BCM v Romania [2025] 11 WLUK 361, a rare and exceptional Article 8 case concerning the extradition of a Romanian national to serve a four-year sentence for fraud. The appeal was re-opened on the basis of compelling fresh medical and social services evidence obtained following the severe deterioration in the mental health of the Requested Person’s partner, for whom he was the primary carer.
Ceylon assisted in preparing the fresh evidence demonstrating a fundamental change in the family circumstances, including psychiatric evidence of major depressive disorder with psychotic features, suicidal ideation, and the risk of the couple’s child entering long-term foster care if extradition proceeded. The High Court accepted that extradition would cause long-term and potentially permanent harm to both the partner and the child, placing the matter firmly within the “rare and exceptional” category where extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. Despite the seriousness of the original offending and the fugitive element, the Court held that the public interest in extradition did not outweigh the extreme harm that removal would cause.
The appeal was allowed and extradition was refused. This judgment stands as one of the few successful Article 8 re-opened appeals in recent years, underlining the exceptionally high threshold required to resist extradition on family-life grounds.
L v Regional Court of Veszprem (Hungary) [2024]
Ceylon assisted in securing conditional bail for an Applicant in LL v Hungary, granted by Ellenbogen J following a fully contested hearing on 14 November 2024. The case concerned historical theft offences for which a two-year sentence had been imposed. Although extradition had already been ordered and permission to appeal had been refused on the papers, the matter was listed for a Renewal Hearing on 21 November, creating a significant risk that bail would be refused as being too proximate to the hearing.
Working alongside counsel, George Hepburne-Scott, it was successfully submitted that the Applicant had lodged an asylum claim based on discrimination against Roma Gypsy communities in Hungary, rendering any removal statute-barred under s.121 Extradition Act 2003. The core of the application concerned the Applicant’s deteriorating eye condition, retina vein occlusion (RVO) which was being inadequately treated in HMP Wandsworth and was causing permanent damage to his eyesight. This provided a powerful protective factor in favour of bail. Despite this being the Applicant’s sixth bail application, the Court granted conditional bail.
T v The Republic of Kosovo [2022]
Ceylon assisted in the successful defence of a Requested Person whose extradition was sought by the Government of Kosovo for alleged offences of robbery and possession of a firearm. The sole evidence relied upon by the requesting state was a confession that had been extracted by the Police resorting to violence during interrogation.
Expert evidence and material from NGOs documenting the systemic problem of coerced confessions within Kosovo’s criminal justice system was adduced in support. This evidence supported the RP’s account that his confession had been extracted through violence and ill-treatment during questioning.
At the substantive extradition hearing, District Judge Bristow accepted that he could not “be sure that the confession was not obtained in the way described by the Requested Person”. The confession was therefore excluded. As no other evidence linked the RP to the alleged offences, the District Judge was obliged to discharge him under s.84 of the Extradition Act 2003.
The Crown Prosecution Service subsequently confirmed that it would not be appealing the decision, bringing the matter to a successful conclusion for the Requested Person.
U v High Court, Dublin (Ireland) [2022]
Ceylon assisted in the successful Article 8 challenge to an extradition request from Ireland concerning a single allegation of burglary dating back to 2013. The Requested Person faced extradition to Dublin to stand trial, but the defence case centered on the profound impact removal would have on his wife and their two young children.
Working alongside counsel, Jonathan Swain, Ceylon prepared detailed family evidence and expert material focusing on one of the children, who was exhibiting significant communication and developmental difficulties. Expert reports demonstrated the potentially devastating consequences that the father’s extradition would have on the child’s emotional stability, attachment and daily functioning.
The Court accepted that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with the family’s Article 8 rights and ordered the Requested Person’s discharge. The Irish Judicial Authority confirmed that it would not be appealing the decision, bringing the proceedings to a successful conclusion.
I v Russian Federation [2018] EWHC 696 (Admin) [2022]
Ceylon assisted in the successful appeal against extradition in I v Russian Federation, a long-running case in which the CPS ultimately conceded it could no longer contest the defence challenge. The RP was originally arrested in 2016 for a fraud conviction, which he maintained was politically motivated and instigated by a business rival. He also challenged extradition on the basis of the appalling prison conditions in Krasnodar.
At the initial hearing, despite concerns over a controversial prison inspection, during which the authorities staged “presentations” to appear compliant, the Court accepted Russian assurances. The RP later absconded in 2018 and was re-arrested in 2021.
Ceylon worked with Counsel Malcolm Hawkes to adduce fresh expert evidence from Professor Judith Pallot, which wholly undermined the earlier findings. The new material showed that Krasnodar prisons were controlled by violent prisoner-enforcers, monitoring bodies had lost all independence, and systemic abuse was routinely concealed, confirmed by leaked body-cam footage of prisoners being raped, beaten, and humiliated. The ECtHR judgment in Tomov v Russia and the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly given Krasnodar’s proximity to the conflict, further demonstrated the real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.
The High Court granted the RP’s application to re-open his appeal under s.108(5) Extradition Act 2003 and quashed the 2016 extradition order. With the CPS conceding it could no longer rely on Russian assurances, the extradition request collapsed, and the RP was released.