Sam is a hands-down brilliant advocate.
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
He has a forensic ability in identifying evidence and quickly. He is very personable and a great person to work with. He is basically the full package.
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
Sam has displayed an enormous capacity for work and the most amazing eye for detail - seeing clearly things that others do not see at all.
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
Sam sees nuances in the facts and evidence as well as the law, building cases that show a high degree of common sense and persuasiveness, even when countering the most difficult arguments. He is constantly aware of political and practical issues that transcend the merely legal.
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
Sam has fantastic judgment and a nice manner in court.
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
Sam can identify the main issues quickly and works out how to package that into the most compelling case for his client. He is pretty fearless - he grasps the thistle and works out what he has to deal with."
Chambers UK 2027, Crime: International Criminal Law
Sam Blom-Cooper displays energy and precision in his written work/drafting, as well as compassion and excellent communication in clear language to lay clients.
Legal 500 2027, Crime
Outstanding advocate who can keep judges and juries engaged, interested, and often convinced by his arguments.
Legal 500 2027, Crime
He has the ability to work under pressure to tight deadlines.
Legal 500 2027, Crime
An exceptional lawyer with a wealth of international experience that allows him to adapt quickly and effectively to any new environment.
Legal 500 2027, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
A master of both written and oral advocacy, he relishes the unusual, and if there's an angle or something that has been overlooked, he will find it.
Legal 500 2027, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
With an eye for both evidential detail and legal principle, he is both flexible and client-friendly, quickly finding the points that matter and applying an imaginative and robust forensic eye to any problem, finding the best solution tailored to his tribunal.
Legal 500 2027, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
Sam is an intellectual lawyer with an extraordinary flair for practical advocacy.
Legal 500 2026, Crime
He is knowledgeable quick, extremely hardworking and a fine advocate.
Legal 500 2026, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
He has an attractive manner in court and has learnt restraint when dealing with a vexatious opponent.
Legal 500 2026, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
A very bright and a very strong tactician.
Chambers UK 2026, Crime: International Criminal Law
He is a first-class lawyer whose judgement is highly regarded.
Chambers UK 2025, Crime: International Criminal Law
He is creative, well-informed, an excellent advocate and writes powerful and comprehensive submissions.
Legal 500 2025, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
He is also a powerful and persuasive advocate on his feet.
Legal 500 2025, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
He has worked at the forefront of some very difficult and controversial cases and has always impressively held his own with the silks involved.
Legal 500 2025, International Human Rights and Criminal Law
He has a vision of where things are going and he does all the work necessary to bring that vision into reality.
Chambers UK 2024, International Criminal Law
Sam is a powerful force.
Legal 500 2024, International Crime and Extradition
He has excellent forensic skills, and has an incisively critical eye both for individual items of evidence as well as the larger factual picture.
Legal 500 2024, International Crime and Extradition
He comes up with good ideas on how to approach issues in a case.
Chambers UK 2023, International Criminal Law
He is absolutely committed to the investigation and able to think outside the box.
Chambers UK 2023, International Criminal Law
Sam is dazzlingly clever, with a gift for communication at every level. He leaves no stone unturned.
Legal 500 2023, International Crime and Extradition
An outstanding lawyer who excels both at legal argument and witness handling.
Legal 500 2022, International Crime and Extradition
The glue that holds the team together, he is a barrister with a great nose for intelligent trial strategy. He is dynamic and is set to be a leading figure at the International Criminal Bar for years to come.
Chambers UK 2022
He is an excellent strategic thinker and a superb advocate. I would recommend him particularly for complex and sensitive international cases.
Legal 500 2022, International Crime and Extradition
An excellent, original-thinking lawyer and a highly persuasive advocate.
Legal 500 2021, International Crime and Extradition
An extremely talented advocate. He is highly intelligent, diligent and meticulous in his preparation of cases. He demonstrates a commanding knowledge of each case.
Legal 500 2021, International Crime and Extradition
He is an excellent, original-thinking lawyer and a highly persuasive advocate who brings charm to his work. His judgement and tactics are good.
Legal 500 2021, International Crime and Extradition
He has the ability to deal with complex material and to identify the important issues in a case.
Legal 500 2021, International Crime and Extradition
A hugely talented advocate.
Legal 500 2020
A brilliant extradition junior, who goes the extra mile for his clients.
Legal 500 2020
Ranked as a leading Junior in International Criminal Law and Extradition.
Legal 500 2018

Sam Blom-Cooper

Barrister

All areas of criminal defence including International Criminal Law; Extradition; Offences involving serious violence, drugs and dishonesty; Public, Administrative and Human Rights Law.

Education

2006 BVC, BPP Law School, London
2004 CPE, City University, London
2002 University of Nottingham / UCM Madrid BSc Physics with Spanish (First)

Professional Memberships

Association of Defence Counsel practising before the ICT
Admitted as counsel to the Kosovo Specialist Chamber
Criminal Bar Association

Languages

Spanish (Fluent)
French (competent)
Farsi (Conversational)

Articles & Publications

Lethal Indifference: Tinkering with the machinery of death – Review of the constitutionality of lethal injection - Middle Templar – Easter 2008, Issue 44

International Criminal Law / Extradition

The Gambia v Republic of the Union of Myanmar: Instructed on behalf of Myanmar as counsel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in proceedings concerning alleged breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
R v VB: Instructed on behalf of the first person ever to be charged and prosecuted for the crime of genocide before the criminal courts of England and Wales. The case concerns the alleged orchestration of, and participation in, the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Prosecutor v AN: Appointed by the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) as co-counsel to represent the former Rwanda Minister of Planning, on appeal, in relation to his convictions for involvement in the 1994 genocide. Representation has subsequently extended to appearing in trial proceedings concerning related allegations of contempt of court through witness interference (bribery and intimidation).
Specialist Prosecutor’s Office v Thaçi: Instructed as co-counsel to represent the former Prime Minister and President of Kosovo (until his arrest) for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising out of the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo in 1998-99, when acting as a leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
Prosecutor v R & J: Initially instructed as legal consultant to an Amicus Curiae Investigator requested by the ICTY to conduct a complex and lengthy investigation into wide-scale witness interference in the case of Vojislav Šešelj. Presently instructed to prosecute these allegations of systematic witness interference.
Government of Japan v W: Instructed as led junior to represent W accused of a $1million diamond robbery in Tokyo in the first ever extradition request from the Government of Japan. Proceedings under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 arise pursuant to a Special Arrangement “Memorandum of Cooperation”. Collateral judicial review proceedings challenged certification of the extradition request under s.70.
Government of Rwanda v Brown et al: Led Junior instructed on behalf of B in a second attempt by Rwanda to extradite in relation to allegations of being a principal organiser of the Rwanda genocide and having directly participated in multiple murders. Extradition refused on the grounds that B would face a real risk of an unfair trial, if extradited. Decision upheld on appeal before the High Court.
VB & Ors v Government of Rwanda & CPS: Led junior on behalf of the first appellant before the UK Supreme Court, seeking to rely upon closed material before the District Judge in ongoing extradition proceedings, in circumstances where such evidence would be withheld from both the Requesting State and the CPS, acting on its behalf.
Re TR: Instructed on behalf of the current Prime Minister of Bangladesh to seek removal of a “Red Notice” from Interpol’s most-wanted list, arising out of allegations of murder and complicity in the assassination attempt (grenade attack) on the previous Prime Minister. Application to remove the Red Notice was granted by Interpol in light of submissions made.
Re KHK: Instructed to represent former Minister of State and Member of Parliament in Bangladesh in connection with application to have removed a “Red Notice” issued by Interpol for K’s arrest in connection with acts of alleged terrorism and murder arising out of an attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.
Republic of Kosovo v SK: Instructed to represent SK accused of murdering his sister in the first ever extradition request from the Republic of Kosovo. Successful discharge on the basis that the domestic arrest warrant was defective within the meaning of the s.78 Extradition Act 2003.
Republic of Moldova v VB: Successful challenge to a Part 2 extradition request on the grounds that detention conditions in the requesting state would violate Article 3 ECHR. Diplomatic assurances were thereafter found to be inadequate to confront the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.

R v VB: Instructed on behalf of the first person ever to be charged and prosecuted for the crime of genocide before the criminal courts of England and Wales (International Criminal Court Act 2001). The case concerns the alleged orchestration of, and participation in, the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and includes further specific allegations of crimes against humanity.
R v DE: Instructed on behalf of the first defendant, and first person ever prosecuted under s.3 (“Assisting a Foreign Intelligence Service”) and s.18 (“Acts on behalf of a foreign power”) National Security Act 2023 regarding aggravated arson attacks committed on behalf of the proscribed terrorist organisation, the Wagner Group, for the benefit of Russia.
R v B: Junior alone on behalf of the alleged “prime mover” in multi-national conspiracy to import more than 5 tonnes of cocaine into the UK.
R v JJ: Led junior on behalf of the first of five defendants in a machete attack gang retaliation murder at CCC. Cut-throat defence run by all co-defendants against JJ.
R v C: Junior alone on behalf of the joint head of Organised Crime Group responsible for the importation and distribution of more than 1 tonne of cocaine.
R v JI: Led junior on behalf of JI accused of the murder of a prostitute by strangulation.
R v H: Junior alone on behalf of the lead conspirator (42 defendants) in multi-national importation scheme involving more than a tonne of cocaine.
R v CP: Led junior representing alleged professional hitman contracted by foreign-based customer.
R v SN: Led junior on behalf of 15-year-old alleged to be a principal in the murder of a drug-dealer.
R v BS: Acted as junior alone on behalf of BS, accused of participation in an “horrific” 14-hour torture session over a drug debt. Acquitted following exclusion of identification evidence due to apparent “blacking up” on identification parade.
R v MG: Acted as junior alone on behalf of MG, acquitted of laundering proceeds from a multi-million pound fraud concerning the sale of counterfeit medicines.
R v CM: Instructed as led junior in a 13-month VHCC involving the alleged defrauding of wealthy residents in a nursing home.
R v RM: Instructed on behalf of one of 9 alleged gang members said to have possessed high-powered firearms with intent to endanger life in arming themselves to violently confront rivals.
R v CS: Junior alone in a multi-handed armed kidnapping and robbery of drug-dealers. The offending involved the fatal shooting of a guard dog.
R v SP: Instructed as led junior on behalf the alleged “book keeper” in a vast and sophisticated conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime.
R v MA: Instructed on as a led junior regarding an allegation of murder arising out of a drugs feud. Following legal argument, plea to manslaughter accepted.
R v AS: Instructed on behalf of defendant acquitted of the attempted rape of a French tourist.
R v CJ: Led junior on behalf of the first defendant in relation to multiple allegations of gang rape on a single complainant.
R v MW: Successful application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process in respect of two unconnected sets of allegations. The conduct of the prosecuting authorities was found to have brought the criminal justice system into disrepute.
R v RC: Instructed on behalf of defendant concerned in the supply of cocaine to co-defendants who were themselves engaged in the supply of Class A drugs on a large scale, believed to be in the region of £10m worth of drugs.
R v JG: Instructed on behalf of a defendant accused of the attempted murder of his brother by repeated stabbing.
R v RP: Instructed in relation to an application to the CCRC concerning conviction for a "Gangland execution" murder and triple attempt murder.
R v JB: Junior acting alone for the first of 9 defendants accused of being the main organiser of violent disorder between rival football fans. Directed acquittal following submission of no case to answer.
R v RP: Led Junior on behalf of defendant facing an allegation of conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life arising out of retribution shootings.
R v PP: 'Critical Mass' trial. Counsel for defendant prosecuted for breaching a s.12 Public Order Act condition imposed upon the monthly cycle ride that coincided with the eve of Olympic opening ceremony.
R v Hickey: Counsel for defendant wrongfully convicted in the notorious "Bridgewater Murder" for which he served 19 years. A term of imprisonment was avoided in relation to multiple allegations of supply of Class A drugs.

Appeal Cases

R (Chappell & Ors) v SSHD [2023] 1 WLR 2489: Judicial review of decision by the Secretary of State to certify first ever Japanese extradition request on grounds of non-compliance with s.70(3) Extradition Act 2003
R v Gould, Mugenzi & Ors [2021] EWCA Crim 447: Acted as junior alone on behalf of one of the principal appellants before a specially constituted Court of Appeal examining the scope and extent of s.66 Courts Act 2003, and the ability of Crown Court judges to exercise powers of the Magistrates’ Court to correct procedural errors.
VB & Ors v Government of Rwanda & CPS [2014] All ER (D) 41; [2014] UKSC 59; [2014] ALL ER (D) 311; [2014] EWHC 889 (Admin): Led junior on behalf of the first appellant before the UK Supreme Court, seeking to rely upon closed material before the District Judge in ongoing extradition proceedings, in circumstances where such evidence would be withheld from both the Requesting State and the CPS, acting on its behalf.
R v Pearl [2019] EWCA Crim 2503: Finding of “dangerousness” and concomitant Extended Sentence of 18 years' quashed on appeal in respect of a “brutal” home invasion aggravated burglary. The sentencing judge had refused to obtain a Pre-Sentence Report as being “unnecessary” due to the extreme violence of the offending.
R v Ndaliki [2018] EWCA Crim 1250: Appeal against sentence concerning level of credit to be accorded where a defendant gives evidence against a co-defendant on behalf of the Prosecution.
Topalli v Belgium [2016] EWHC 2567 (Admin): Instructed on behalf of alleged ring-leader of a multi-jurisdictional human trafficking organised crime group. The appeal focussed on the forum bar and abuse of process arising out of alleged judicial misconduct in the Requesting State.
AG Reference (R v Osagiede) [2017] EWCA Crim 329: Successful response to reference by the Attorney General in respect of a high-level category one aggravated burglary. The sentence under review was considered to be lenient, but not unduly so.
R v Sula [2017] EWCA Crim 27: Successful appeal against a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment following conviction for money laundering in respect of £500,000 cash.
R v Gooden [2016] EWCA Crim 2286: Successful appeal against the imposition of a term of immediate imprisonment for one offence in a series of convenience store armed robberies, for which the appellant had already been found to be a “dangerous” offender. Term of suspended imprisonment substituted.
R v Griffiths [2016] EWCA Crim 1151: Successful appeal against conviction for contempt of court arising out of inbound extradition to the UK, having absconded to Germany during his original trial. The appeal related to the application of specialty protections under Part 3 of the Extradition Act 2003.
R v Adewale [2016] EWCA Crim 403: Appeal against conviction for money laundering, arising out deficiencies in the direction to the jury in respect of non-defendant bad character and refusal to accede to a submission of no case to answer.
R v Korb [2014] EWCA Crim 2826: Following refusal of permission to appeal, successfully argued that the custodial element of a suspended sentence order was manifestly excessive for prolific burglar with serious learning disabilities arising from foetal alcohol syndrome.
Powlesland v DPP [2014] 3 All ER 479; [2013] EWHC 3846: (Admin) Appeal by way of case stated regarding the lawful operation of s.12 Public Order Act 1986 in respect of public processions.
R v Graham & Osinlaru [2011] EWCA Crim 176: Appeal against sentences arising out of multi-handed raid upon commercial jewellers.
R v Shah [2011] EWCA Crim 180: Obtained leave to appeal against sentence, as freshly instructed counsel, following refusal by the single judge, for two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs. Sentence of 5 years and 4 months reduced on appeal to 4 years.
R v Rhodes [2010] EWCA Crim 500: Obtained leave to appeal against sentence, as freshly instructed counsel, following refusal by the single judge, in relation to the supply of Class A drugs. Sentence of 4 1/2 years reduced to 3 years.
R v Davis [2010] EWCA Crim 594: Appeal against sentence that a term of 12 months' imprisonment for Blackmail should have been suspended. Sentence of 9 months suspended for 12 months with supervision requirement imposed.

Public and Administrative Law

R (Electoral Commission) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court & Anor [2009] All ER (D) 178; [2009] EWCA Civ 1078: Led Junior in relation to the forfeiture of donations. Donor not found to be "permissible donor" within Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Human Rights Work / Associated Work

Kaya v Republic of Turkey (27110/08): Successful Application to the ECtHR for a declaration of a violation of Art 10 on behalf of a Turkish citizen who was convicted for using the word “esteemed” in reference to the convicted PKK leader, Abdullah Öcalan.
Elikashvili & Lomidze v Russia: Petitioned the ECtHR on behalf of two applicants resulting in the serious injury and death of Georgian citizens during Russian military bombings. Pending.
Training on Rights of the Child in International Law (Diyarbakir, Turkey): Conducted training sessions for members of the Diyarbakir Bar Association on the rights of the child in international law and their enforcement.

Death Penalty

Between 2002-07, practised as an investigator and mitigation specialist on behalf of persons facing the death penalty in the US, focusing on the cases of Mexican nationals in Texas.
Conducted trainings for consular officials on behalf of Mexico in relation to death penalty litigation and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).