Before becoming a solicitor, Gitana studied Russian Philology and also Management of Language Learning (MA) and had a successful career as a translator and interpreter working mainly for the police, courts and at international conferences. During over 10 years working in the legal sector in the UK, she acquired passion for law, completed the GDL and LPC with distinction and trained as a lawyer specialising in criminal defence and extradition, enabling her to use her languages. Gitana is fluent in Russian, Lithuanian, Georgian and English.
Gitana is an accredited Police Station Representative and has extensive experience representing clients at the police station, dealing with a vast range of offence from minor theft from shop to serious sexual offences or fraud. She enjoys dealing with all aspects of Criminal Law from advising her clients at the Police Stations and defending them passionately in the Magistrates’ Court.
Gitana is considered to be an expert Extradition solicitor by those who defend in Extradition, which is one of the most challenging and technically complex areas of Criminal Law.
- Brazil v G (2019) – successfully secured the discharge of a Portuguese national, Mr G from an extradition request issued by the government of Brazil. The case collapsed after a Sao Paulo court ruled that the evidence was unlikely to be capable of convicting the requested person and the Westminster Magistrates Court found a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Italy v E (2019) – discharge of a warrant issued by Italy to return Ms E. for an investigation of a cross-jurisdiction conspiracy to traffic drugs. To preserve the client’s reputation and impeccable character was paramount in this case from the outset, as our client was a female with no previous criminal records. We worked very hard and successfully preserved the client’s liberty and her good reputation, clean criminal record and established private life in the UK.
- the Netherlands v P (2019) – The EAW concerned an offence of robbery for which Mr DP, a British national was convicted and initially sentenced to 4 years in custody. Mr P served two-thirds of the sentence and was released with no conditions or any restriction on his liberty attached and as such was free to travel back to the UK. The sentence was successfully appealed by prosecution a year after P’s release from prison and his sentence was increased to five years of which 865 days remain to be served. Several challenged raised: s 14 – delay, s 20 – decision in absence and s 25 – mental health. Appeal allowed under s 25.
- Hungary v MF (2018) – extradition discharged on the basis that the offence referred to in the warrant was not an extradition offence as the conduct occurred outside the territory of the Requesting State and as such did not satisfy the requirements under s 64.
- Latvia v AS (2018) – after a 14-month battle the EAW discharged. AS was wanted on accusation warrant for an offence of soliciting to murder and was at risk of facing life sentence; in total five expert reports were relied upon to secure the discharge of the warrant. This the case involved exceptional circumstances and complexity, and the attendances and preparation required exceptional competence, skill and expertise.
- The UAE v JK (2018) – successful defence of oil and gas executive – challenge to conditions of detention and right to a fair trial – no appeal by UAE; a British National requested by the U.A.E. to serve a sentence of one year and payment of 600,000 AED for an offence of wounding with intent. Amongst evidence relied upon were two expert reports: on prison conditions in the UAE by professor Morgan and fairness of the criminal proceedings, rights of the defence in general and in particular in light of the specific characteristic of the requested person by Dr Davidson.
- Poland v H (2017) – successful challenge under Article 8 ECHR, extradition of a single mother to one young child discharged despite being a fugitive and wanted by the Polish authorities to serve a lengthy sentence. Main evidence relied upon was Dr Grange’s (child psychologist) report focusing on the devasting long term impact the separation would have on her 5-year-old daughter, evidence of abuse experienced in hands of her ex-partner and the offence committed under duress, evidence of expert in relation of her mental immaturity (cognitive assessment), statements of her family members. The CPS decided not to appeal
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Never miss email updates in your inbox.