Profile image

Malcolm is a highly experienced extradition law barrister. He is frequently instructed to defend in extradition requests issued by judicial authorities and governments from around the world.

He is sought for his in-depth knowledge of case preparation, tactical considerations and is recognised for the strength of both his written submissions and advocacy in court. 

What the directories say

Malcolm has long been ranked as a leading, Tier 1 junior in International Crime and Extradition in the Legal 500 Guide to the UK Bar and is recognised as a leader in the field of extradition law by Chambers and Partners: 

"One of, if not the best junior barristers practising in the field of extradition. A fearless but not aggressive advocate, forensic in presentation and preparation. Thorough, human and approachable, motivated and committed to all his cases."Legal 500 2025

"He fights the cases like no one else, and he can win cases where others cannot. And he has done so year after year." - Legal 500 2024

"An absolute expert in extradition law, he's a wonderful advocate, who is always eager to share his knowledge and experience." - Chambers and Partners 2024

"Very hard-working and detailed, and someone who shows great compassion and attention to the client's needs." - Chambers and Partners 2024

"Malcolm is extremely calm under pressure. He remains unflustered and is a very persuasive advocate." - Chambers and Partners 2024

A fluent Russian speaker, prior to coming to the Bar, Malcolm worked for Human Rights Watch in New York and Moscow and Amnesty International in London as Russia/Belarus researcher. He wrote several reports on human rights violations on both sides during second Chechnya conflict and on the dictatorship in Belarus.

Malcolm is Direct Access qualified.

Key cases

Malcolm has acted in well over 100 reported appeals to the High Court, including the Divisional Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Merticariu v Romania [2024] UKSC 10, successful Supreme Court appeal where the appellant would not be entitled per s. 20 EA 2003 to a re-trial where his conviction in Romania had been in his absence.

Kozak v Hungary [2023] EWHC 149 (Admin), appeal allowed where a Ukrainian national had falsely obtained a Hungarian passport had served in excess of the maximum sentence he would have received had the conduct occurred in the UK.

Brockwell v Westminster Magistrates Court [2022] EWHC 1662 (Admin): human rights challenge brought to halt never-ending s. 8B EA 2003 adjournments to an Irish extradition request where the requested person was serving multiple life sentences in the UK.

Kaderli v Turkey [2022] EWHC 13 (Admin), appeal involving burden and standard of proof in retrial cases, where the appellant had been barred from attending trial to challenge the key prosecution witness.

Eason v United States [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin), Divisional Court appeal allowed where the US government had failed to account for the significant passage of time before seeking the appellant’s extradition, during which crucial defence evidence had been destroyed.

Chawla v India [2020] EWHC 102 (Admin), Divisional Court appeal involving alleged match-fixing international cricket, fair trial and prison conditions; procedure post-sending of an extradition request to the Secretary of State following successful prosecution appeal.

Bartulis v Lithuania [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin), Divisional Court appeal against extradition to Lithuania and Article 3, prison conditions; considering the effectiveness of assurances.

Zarmaev v Russian Federation [2017] EWHC 2705 (Admin); Divisional Court appeal, remitted back for reconsideration (later discharged) where there was a real risk a Chechen fighter, wanted for murder, would suffer a flagrantly unfair trial. The decision to allow the appeal effectively reversed the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to European Court: Zarmayev v Belgium (app. no. 35/10) 27 May 2014.

Pimenta v Brazil [2017] EWHC 2588 (Admin) Divisional Court appeal where the appellant was wanted for murder; intense focus on prison conditions and alternative arrangements and assurances.

Purcell v Belgium [2017] EWHC 2588 (Admin), Divisional Court appeal on question of minimum prison staff provision during strike action and Article 3 ECHR.