Tatyana Eatwell


Year of Call

Tatyana Eatwell

Tatyana Eatwell specialises in public international law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and human rights. With regard to domestic law, Tatyana has substantial experience in the Crown Court and advises regularly on appeals and judicial review. Notable cases include R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64, the first challenge to the scope of the definition of terrorism in armed conflict heard by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in which she acted as junior counsel for the appellant.


Tatyana also carries out advisory work for international organisations and individuals on subjects that include diplomatic protection, human rights and peace building in the Middle East and international counter-terrorism law. She was a visiting lecturer in international law at the University of Southern California in 2014. She is counsel to Richard Ratcliffe, the husband of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, British-Iranian national arbitrarily detained in Iran.


Tatyana is currently undertaking a PhD in public international law at the University of Cambridge.



‘Selling the Pass: Habeas corpus, diplomatic relations and the protection of siberty and security of persons detained abroad’ (2013) 62 ICLQ 727


A Compilation of Immigration and Asylum Policies of the Home Office, Vols 1 & 2 (2009, HJA Training & ILPA)

International Law

Tatyana has expertise in international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law.

Tatyana is currently instructed as junior, led by Tim Moloney QC, in the case of R v Mohammed Gul [2012] EWCA 280, which will be heard by the Supreme Court in June 2013. The case concerns the application of international humanitarian law to the the definition of terrorism as provided by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In addition to practice, she is a research associate for the Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East (SOAS) and is currently working on her PhD thesis at Cambridge University on State responsibility for complicity in internationally wrongful acts.

Criminal Appeals

Tatyana has a growing appellate practice and advises on appeals against conviction and sentence.

She is currently instructed in the following appeals:

  • R v G, an appeal against conviction concerning allegations of police corruption.
  • R v Mohammed Gul [2012] EWCA Crim 280. An appeal to the Supreme Court (to be heard in June 2013) concerning whether the scope of the definition of terrorism provided by s.1 Terrorism Act 2000 includes acts regulated by international humanitarian law.

Other Serious Criminal Offences

Tatyana has been instructed in cases of allegations of violence, robbery, conspiracy to supply drugs, fraud and other indictable and either-way offences.

Recent cases include:

  • R v Garrett, 2014 - High profile case of ‘place-hacking’ Oxford academic.
  • R v Martin, Southwark Crown Court, 2012 – Conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
  • R v Khan, Blackfriars Crown Court, 2012 – Assault. Defendant acquitted by a jury.
  • R v Marin, Blackfriars Crown Court, 2012 – Conspiracy to steal.
  • R v Iancu, Inner London Crown Court, 2012 – Racially aggravated assault. Defendant acquitted by a jury.
  • R v Brandy, Luton Crown Court, 2012 – Robbery. Defendant acquitted after a successful submission of no case to answer.
  • R v Thomas, Croydon Crown Court, 2011 – Child cruelty and assault. Defendant acquitted by a jury.
  • R v Louca, Snaresbrook Crown Court, 2011 – Possession of an offensive weapon. Crown offered no evidence after successful application to exclude evidence of alleged admissions pursuant to s.78 PACE.
  • R v De Brito, Snaresbrook Crown Court, 2011 – ABH against two police officers.
  • R v Ball, Oxford Crown Court, 2011 – Burglary.
  • R v Kennedy, Southend Crown Court, 2011– Fraud and Theft. Crown offered no evidence after successful opposition by defence to hearsay application to adduce evidence of unavailable witness.
  • R v Harris, Wood Green Crown Court, 2011 – Threats to kill. Defendant acquitted by a jury.
About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)