Profile image

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

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

What the directories say

Chambers and Partners 2026: Band 1

“He is an excellent barrister.”

“Malcolm Hawkes is experienced and committed; able to identify issues and challenges and present them with ease.”

“He is the full package: encyclopaedic knowledge of the law, a fearless advocate and a genuinely warm person who treats all clients with real respect that they can feel.”

“Malcolm’s meticulous preparation of written submissions and breadth of knowledge ensures the most complex cases can be won.”

“Malcolm is a wonderful, calm advocate, always fighting, always defending and always finding new arguments to prevent extradition.”

 

Legal 500 2026: Tier 1 Leading junior

"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."

“Incisive, brave and dedicated.”

“He has a unique combination of qualities – empathy, determination, legal creativity, poise and sharpness of mind. A superb advocate, even under heavy fire.”

 

Chambers and Partners 2025:

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

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

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

 

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."  

 

Malcolm speaks fluent Russian, which he studied to degree level at university. Prior to coming to the Bar, Malcolm worked for Human Rights Watch in their New York and Moscow offices and for Amnesty International in London as researcher on Russia and Belarus. He wrote several reports on human rights violations during the 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: 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 double 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.

Lysiak v Poland [2015] EWHC 3098 (Admin), Divisional Court appeal allowed where the court agreed that breaches of the right to a fair trial that fall short of the flagrant breach standard can be taken into account in the Article 8 proportionality exercise.

Ninedeys v Bulgaria [2015] EWHC 3098 (Admin) Double jeopardy barred extradition for financial offences committed in Bulgaria where substantially the same conduct had already been prosecuted in Germany.