A Cross Border Double-Jeopardy legal challenge between the United Kingdom, Spain and Jersey
PUBLIC STATEMENT
I am a permanent resident of Spain for 26 years. This is my home and I believed in Justice. But I am not Spanish, so Justice and Human Rights means nothing.
I am currently surrendering to the Spanish authorities following the completion of domestic extradition proceedings relating to a request issued by the authorities of Jersey.
This extradition concerns financial transfers that were already investigated, prosecuted, and concluded in proceedings before Southwark Crown Court in the United Kingdom in 2019. In those proceedings I accepted full responsibility, served a custodial sentence, and paid the financial penalties imposed by the court, including a confiscation order relating to the same underlying financial conduct.
The present Jersey prosecution concerns transfers that formed part of the same financial route already examined during the United Kingdom proceedings between 2014 and 2018. My legal position is that these transfers do not constitute new or independent conduct but form part of a single factual framework already addressed by the UK courts.
During the extradition proceedings in Spain, the Public Prosecutor supported refusal of surrender on double-jeopardy grounds. Despite this, the extradition request was ultimately approved by the Spanish courts after appeals were exhausted.
I have therefore submitted an application before the European Court of Human Rights arguing that extradition in these circumstances risks violating protections against duplicate prosecution guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. That application has been accepted for consideration.
My legal defence in Jersey will include arguments based on the international prohibition on double prosecution for the same facts and the principle that courts should prevent proceedings that amount to an abuse of process.
This legal challenge is not an attempt to avoid responsibility. It is an effort to ensure that established protections against being prosecuted twice for the same conduct are respected.
Case Summary & File
(Quick Facts Panel)
Key facts to my case:
- UK conviction: 2019
- Sentence served: Yes
- Confiscation order: Paid
- Jersey extradition request: 2025
- Spanish prosecutor position: Opposed extradition
- Spanish court decision: Extradition approved
- Constitutional appeal: Exhausted
- Strasbourg application: Accepted
- Current stage: Surrender pending transfer to Jersey
Available Public Case Files:
Spanish Extradition Indictment – This is the full Extradition request from Spain
Extradition Court Final Judgement – The is the Final Court judgement agreeing to my extradition.
2019 – HILL Martin Imprisonment Order– 2019 Imprisonment Order detailing charges dealt with by the judge.
UK 2019 Certificate of Conviction– 2019 – Certification of conviction
POCA – Schedule of Assets 5050a – Proceeds of Crime Schedule of assets detailing Jersey accounts
ECHR APPLICATION – My ECHR Application March 2026
International Law Expert Report– Expert report in to the two cases and implication of International Law
Timeline of My Case (2014–Present)
2014–2018
UK Investigation into VAT-related conduct
HM Revenue & Customs investigated financial activity involving VAT fraud and related transfers between London and Spain.
Some transfers passed technically through Jersey banking routes as part of the international transfer pathway.
These financial movements were known to investigators during the original proceedings.
April 2019
Charges issued in the UK covering the full financial framework (VAT Fraud/Money Laundering)
The UK proceedings treated the activity between 2014 and 2018 as one continuous financial structure rather than separate offences in multiple jurisdictions.
June 2019
Decision not to pursue separate laundering proceedings
Transfers routed through Jersey were considered within the wider UK case and were not prosecuted separately as independent offences.
This decision forms part of my legal argument that the factual framework was already dealt with and closed within the Criminal and POCA actions.
2019
Conviction before the Southwark Crown Court
- I accepted responsibility
- I served a custodial sentence at HMP Wandsworth
- I paid financial penalties
- I complied with a confiscation order relating to the same financial conduct
The UK proceedings addressed the full financial route between London, Jersey and Spain.
January 2025
Extradition request issued by Jersey
Jersey authorities requested my extradition from Spain in relation to transfers already examined in the UK proceedings.
The request concerns approximately £94,794 forming part of the same financial pathway considered and dealt with previously in the UK action.
June 2025
Spanish Public Prosecutor recommends refusal
During proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional court in Spain, the Public Prosecutor concluded extradition should be refused because the case raised double-jeopardy concerns.
October 2025
Extradition authorised by the National Court
Despite the recommendation against extradition, the court authorised surrender and Extradition.
December 2025
Appeal dismissed
The Spanish plenary chamber confirmed the extradition decision.
January 2026
Constitutional appeal filed
A constitutional challenge was submitted arguing violations of:
- effective judicial protection
- legal certainty
- protection against duplicate prosecution
February 2026
Constitutional Court declines to admit appeal
This exhausted domestic remedies in Spain.
March 2026
Application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights
The application argues violations of:
- Article 5 (right to liberty)
- Article 6 (fair trial rights)
- Article 4 Protocol No. 7 (double jeopardy protection)
The Court accepted the application for consideration. This application is still proceeding through the court process but is not expected to be reviewed for a number of months.
2026 (Current Stage)
Final surrender phase
Following completion of proceedings in Spain, I am now surrendering to Spanish authorities pending transfer to Jersey.
My legal defence in Jersey will include arguments based on:
- international protection against double prosecution
- prior judicial determination of the same financial conduct
- abuse of process principles
The Legal Question at the Centre of This Case
The Original UK Case
The UK proceedings addressed a single financial scheme between 2014 and 2018 involving VAT-related offences and movement of funds from London to Spain through a banking route that technically passed through Jersey.
These transfers were:
- identified
- analysed
- attributed
- and included within confiscation calculations
The UK court treated the conduct as one unified criminal framework, not separate offences across multiple jurisdictions.
I plead guilty to these offenses accepting full responsibility. I served a custodial sentence and paid the full financial penalties ordered by the court.
Why Jersey is Prosecuting again
The Jersey prosecution concerns approximately £94,794 transferred through a Jersey banking route during the same period already examined in the UK proceedings.
No additional transactions are alleged or even happened.
No separate laundering structure is identified.
No new evidence has been presented. All evidence from the Jersey action has been taken directly from the original UK prosecution
Instead, the same transfers are now described as standalone money-laundering offences.
- same financial pathway
- same factual conduct
- prior confiscation order
- second prosecution request
This case concerns whether financial conduct already prosecuted and confiscated in one jurisdiction can lawfully be prosecuted again in another.
My Defence: Double Jeopardy (non bis in idem)
European human-rights law prohibits a second prosecution based on substantially identical facts.
This protection is guaranteed by:
- Article 4 Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Article 9 of the European Convention on Extradition
My legal position is simple:
The UK proceedings already addressed the same financial transfers now relied upon by Jersey authorities. There is nothing new in the Jersey inditement.
A second prosecution based on the same transactions violates international law.
Abuse of Process Argument (to be raised in Jersey court)
In addition to double jeopardy protections, my defence will argue that the Jersey prosecution represents an abuse of process.
This is because:
- the financial flows were already judicially examined
- the benefit was already calculated
- confiscation was already ordered
- the sentence was already served
Courts have inherent powers to prevent proceedings that undermine fairness and legal certainty.
Spanish Extradition proceedings
The extradition request was examined by the Audiencia Nacional.
Importantly:
The Spanish Public Prosecutor supported refusal of extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.
Despite this recommendation, the court authorised my surrender and pending extradition.
Appeals were dismissed.
A constitutional appeal was later rejected.
This exhausted all of my domestic remedies in Spain.
My Application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
I have applied to the European Court of Human Rights arguing violations of:
- Article 5 (right to liberty)
- Article 6 (fair trial rights)
- Article 4 Protocol No. 7 (double jeopardy protection)
My application explains that extradition would expose me to a second deprivation of liberty for conduct already prosecuted in the United Kingdom.
The Court has accepted my application for consideration.
A request for interim protection under Rule 39 has been submitted, but rejected on the ground that the is No Risk to Human life.
Frequently Asked Questions About My Case
Why am I being extradited to Jersey?
The extradition concerns financial transfers between 2014 and 2018 that passed through Jersey as part of a wider financial route already examined in proceedings before the Southwark Crown Court in 2019.
Jersey authorities are seeking to prosecute those transfers as standalone money-laundering offences.
My legal position is that these transfers formed part of the same factual framework already investigated and concluded in the United Kingdom proceedings.
Didn’t you already serve a prison sentence for this case?
Yes.
In the UK proceedings:
- I accepted responsibility
- I served a custodial sentence
- I paid the financial penalties ordered by the court
- I complied with a confiscation order
Those proceedings addressed the financial conduct now relied upon in the extradition request.
What is your main legal argument against the Jersey prosecution?
My defence is based on the international legal principle known as double jeopardy (non bis in idem).
This principle protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same facts.
It is recognised under:
- Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Article 9 of the European Convention on Extradition
Did Spanish prosecutors support your extradition?
No.
During proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional, the Spanish Public Prosecutor recommended that extradition should be refused because the conduct had already been prosecuted in the United Kingdom.
Despite this recommendation, the court ultimately authorised surrender.
Have you challenged the extradition decision in Spain?
Yes.
- I challenged the extradition before the National Court
- I appealed the decision
- I filed a constitutional appeal before the Spanish Constitutional Court
After these remedies were exhausted, I applied to the European Court of Human Rights where my application is still pending.
What is your application before the European Court of Human Rights about?
My application argues that extradition in these circumstances risks violating protections under:
- Article 5 (right to liberty)
- Article 6 (right to a fair trial)
- Article 4 Protocol No. 7 (protection against double prosecution)
The Court has accepted the application for consideration.
Are you trying to avoid facing justice?
No.
I have already served a custodial sentence and complied fully with the penalties imposed by the UK court.
My legal challenge concerns whether a second prosecution based on the same financial conduct is permitted under international human-rights law.
This case concerns whether a person who has already served a sentence and complied with court-ordered penalties can lawfully face a second prosecution based on the same financial conduct in another jurisdiction.
Media enquiries
My Wife
Amanda Crighton-Hill
mandy@meadowden.com
+34 692 961 532 / +44 7541 551 453
Lawyer Contact
JOSE MANUEL – PELLICER Y HEREDIA ABOGADOS ALICANTE
San Fernando 46 03001, Alicante Spain
+34 965 480 737
