Outline Chambers

Matei Clej was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2017. He holds an LLB from Birkbeck College, University of London. His practice is centred on extradition law, in which he has developed a substantial caseload at every level of the jurisdiction. Several of his cases have produced reported judgments of the High Court. He is qualified to accept Public Access instructions and to conduct litigation.  Matei's extradition practice encompasses the full range of issues that arise in Part 1 and Part 2 proceedings. 

Matei Clej was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2017. He holds an LLB from Birkbeck College, University of London. His practice is centred on extradition law, in which he has developed a substantial caseload at every level of the jurisdiction. Several of his cases have produced reported judgments of the High Court. He is qualified to accept Public Access instructions and to conduct litigation.  Matei's extradition practice encompasses the full range of issues that arise in Part 1 and Part 2 proceedings. 

Recent work

Extradition

D v Romania [2025] EWHC 768 (Admin) concerned an appeal by a fugitive Romanian national sought on a conviction warrant for theft. The grounds raised section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, on the basis that the requested person had been tried and convicted in his absence, and Article 8 ECHR in respect of his partner and young child. Matei called expert evidence from Associate Professor Norel Neagu on Romanian law, both as to the section 20 issues and the prospect of early release as a factor in the Article 8 proportionality exercise. The appeal was dismissed; the court indicated, however, that had Professor Neagu's evidence been accepted, it would have held that Romanian retrial provisions did not amount to an unqualified right of retrial as required by section 20.

​M v Romania [2025] EWHC 178 (Admin) raised the question under section 20 whether two requested persons — a father and son sought for violent disorder — had deliberately absented themselves from their Romanian appeal proceedings, notwithstanding that they had not left Romania to evade justice and had attended trial in person at first instance. Matei represented the father at first instance and on appeal. The case involved substantial psychiatric and psychological evidence and a multi-factorial Article 8 analysis.

​G v Romania [2024] EWHC 1436 (Admin) involved a mother of two British children sought to serve four years and four months for fraud. The appeal required detailed engagement with the HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 framework and the authorities on dependent children at risk of local authority care upon a parent's extradition. The court dismissed the appeal, finding extradition proportionate having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the scale of victimisation, and the appellant's knowledge of the proceedings when she returned to the United Kingdom; it held that the extradition court was entitled to assess, on the evidence before it, what was likely to happen to the children in the event of extradition. The case is cited in support of this principle in the fourth edition of Nicholls, Montgomery and Knowles on The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance (OUP).

​V v Hungary [2024] EWHC 2790 (Admin) concerned the admissibility of fresh evidence on extradition appeal, including a change of circumstances following the birth of the appellant's child. The court refused the application, applying the strict Fenyvesi test on the grounds that the evidence was not decisive.

​R v Romania [2024] EWHC 1180 (Admin) raised the argument that an electronically-monitored curfew imposed as a bail condition since December 2018 constituted house arrest under Romanian law, giving rise to a legal entitlement to a parity deduction in sentence. The court refused permission to appeal.

G v Romania (pending) is a substantive High Court appeal advancing concurrent challenges under sections 2, 10, and 20 of the 2003 Act alongside Article 8. The section 2 and dual criminality challenges concern fraud allegations said to be insufficiently particularised to supply the necessary mens rea elements, the warrant having relied on foreign statutory labels rather than a description of conduct. The section 20 ground arises from a factual contradiction within the warrant itself, engaging unresolved questions in the post-Cretu, Bertino, and Merticariu jurisprudence on the distinction between chosen and court-appointed representation.

​C v Moldova (awaiting judgment) involved a two-day substantive evidentiary hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court in October 2025. Matei, led by Hannah Hinton of Serjeants' Inn Chambers, represented the requested person. The case involved the coordination of complex expert evidence across three reports addressing the detention regime at Leova L3 Prison, including the informal hierarchy operating within the Moldovan prison system which has attracted extensive adverse findings before the ECtHR. The case has attracted particular scrutiny in light of repeated breaches of diplomatic assurances given by the requesting state.

​Judicial Review

R (R) v Northamptonshire Magistrates' Court [2023] EWHC 3290 (Admin) arose from domestic criminal proceedings in which Matei's client, charged with driving with excess alcohol, sought judicial review of a decision to adjourn trial following the non-attendance of the critical prosecution witness. Matei argued the decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to the court. The application was dismissed; the judgment nonetheless contains a detailed treatment of the principles governing adjournment applications where witnesses fail to attend.

​

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

R v A (A) [2024] EWCA Crim 589 was a sentence appeal before Dingemans LJ, Wall J, and Judge De Bertodano concerning an Iranian national convicted of knowingly attempting to arrive in the United Kingdom without valid entry clearance. The appeal raised whether a sentence of two years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of the guideline framework in R v Ginar [2023] EWCA Crim 1121.

Criminal Practice

Matei's Crown Court practice spans sentence, trial, and appellate work. He secured a suspended sentence in R v SM at Snaresbrook Crown Court for a defendant convicted of laundering the proceeds of a £44,000 fraud against a vulnerable victim, and in R v AT at Winchester Crown Court for a defendant on a four-count indictment for possession of over 20,000 indecent images. In R v TG at Luton Crown Court he secured an acquittal for a defendant charged with witness intimidation, having been instructed mid-trial earning. In R v KF at Portsmouth Crown Court he secured 36 months' imprisonment on a second-strike possession with intent to supply, with 10% credit for a very late plea after the jury was sworn.

​

Confiscation and Proceeds of Crime

In R v CDM at Southwark Crown Court, Matei appeared in complex confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 following conviction for conspiracy to conceal criminal property and threats to kill (eight years' imprisonment). The case involved a transnational fraud spanning 42 bank accounts across seven jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Andorra, and the Isle of Man. After 4 days of contested hearings before HHJ Spiro, the court found a total benefit of £1,493,794 and made a confiscation order of £993,794, a reduction of £1/2m from the figure sought by the Crown; submissions on the default sentence, citing R v Castillo, secured a reduction from seven to six years.

Called: 2017
Qualified to accept Public Access instructions
Licensed to conduct Litigation
Police Station Accreditation

English, Romanian, French, Spanish

• Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum

• • City Law School – BTPC

  • Birkbeck College – LLB