Areas of Law 

Our privacy policy explains how we use cookies. By using this site, we have assumed your agreement to their use.

 

Follow us:

One Crown Office Row at LinkedIn  One Crown Office Row on Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

Public Law

Showing records 1 - 10 of 62.

Jeremy Hyam QC successful in Judicial Review of GDC guidance on retrospective effect of amendments to Dentists Act 1984

The GDC had denied a dental practitioner his right of review of an unpublished warning issued by the Investigating Committee under its new power under s.27(A)11 Dentists Act 1984 which came into force on 13th April 2016 on the basis that that section had no retrospective effect.


Oliver Sanders and Amelia Walker in counter-extremism judicial review

The claimant, Dr Salman Butt, is challenging the lawfulness of two features of the Home Secretary’s counter-extremism strategy - the Prevent Duty Guidance on external speakers at universities and the work of the Home Office Extremism Analysis Unit.


Owain Thomas QC in the Court of Appeal in Criminal Injuries Compensation case

In CICA v Hutton and others Owain Thomas QC represented the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in the Court of Appeal for the second time in this long running case.


Oliver Sanders obtains injunction in SAS media case

Oliver Sanders is acting for the Ministry of Defence in a breach of contract claim against Colin Maclachlan, a former SAS member who has appeared on Channel 4 and Channel 5 and whose memoir, "The Pilgrim" was due to be published by HarperCollins this week.


Matthew Flinn Successfully Represents The Home Secretary in the High Court

Matthew Flinn has successfully represented the Home Secretary in the High Court.  

Judicial review proceedings were issued to challenge a decision to revoke the migrant sponsorship licence of a large chain of beauty clinics. The licence had been revoked on the basis of concerns that sponsorship certificates were being issued in circumstances where there was no genuine vacancy to be filled.


David Manknell, acting for Air Accident Investigation Branch and Martin Downs, acting for the Police, Today Received Judgment - Shoreham Air Accident Investigation

Wednesday 28 September the High Court handed down its judgement in the case between the Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Secretary of State of Transport.  Police have been refused access to Shoreham Pilot interviews and statements from witnesses.  Footage of film on board the Hawker Hunter place has been handed over. 
 


Owain Thomas QC representing the United Kingdom Government in the CJEU

Owain Thomas QC is representing the United Kingdom Government in the CJEU in Luxembourg on 30th June 2016 in one of the first cases to go before the Court since the Brexit vote last week.

Owain is instructed by the Cabinet Office/EU Litigation department in Case 326/15 DNB Banka A/S, a case from Latvia involving the rules for costs sharing groups under the VAT Directive. The case is the first to examine in detail the scope of this provision and will see the Court receiving submissions from at least 6 Member States and the Commission. The status of the Court's judgments in future, and those which have been reflected in domestic law in the past, is likely to be a hot topic in the months and possibly years ahead.

 


Control Order upheld following rehearing

Angus McCullough QC and Shaheen Rahman were instructed as Special Advocates for GG in the long running case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG [2016] EWHC 1193 (Admin)‚Äč.  Collins J held that the imposition and renewals of a control order between 2006 and 2010 were lawful and based upon reasonable grounds for suspecting that GG had been involved in terrorist-related activity.

The control order was the subject of a previous appeal, predating AF(No 3) v SSHD [2010] 2 AC 209.  In that case the House of Lords determined the extent of disclosure required in such proceedings and held that Article 6 required that the controllee be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to his special advocate.  General assertions were insufficient and matters in GG's case accordingly fell to be redetermined applying the correct approach.

Whilst the control order and renewals were upheld, a condition preventing GG from living with his family in Derby and requiring his relocation to Cardiff - asserted by him to have led to the breakdown of his marriage - was found not to have been necessary and quashed.  

It is not yet known if there will be an appeal or further proceedings arising from the judgment.

Read the judgment here.

 


Iain O'Donnell in appeal on the definition of 'animal fighting'

Iain O'Donnell acts for the RSPCA in appeal on the definition of 'animal fighting' - RSPCA v McCormick & ors [2016] EWHC 928'

The RSPCA sought clarification from the Divisional Court on the nature of the activities captured under section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This case stated appeal resulted from the prosecution of a group calling itself 'The Devon Destroyers', which took hunting dogs into the countryside and caused them to enter into violent interactions with various wild animals, some of which fought back when cornered. 

The Divisional Court found that the key element required to meet the definition of 'animal fight', as set out in section 8(7) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, was that a protected animal (in this case the group's dogs) be 'placed with' the other animal (the wild animals) 'for the purpose of fighting'. This required (a) proximity, in the sense that the other animal had to be present (rather than hunted or chased before the fight), and (b) that there be some element of control of the other animal that would prevent its escape. 

The RSPCA's position is that this interpretation is considerably more restrictive in terms of the types of nuisance that it captures than was intended by Parliament (not least because it effectively ignores the fact that 'animal fight' as defined in section 8(7) includes provision for a fight between a protected animal and a human). The judgment can be found here: RSPCA v McCormick & ors [2016] EWHC 928

 


Adam Wagner in important Court of Appeal case on Parole Board powers

In Calder, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWCA Civ 1050, Adam Wagner acted for Terence Calder in the Court of Appeal in a case relating to his recall to prison. The Appellant was recalled to prison after the police said that they had intelligence to the effect that Mr Calder was planning a retaliatory attack. Mr Calder argued that the recall had been unlawful as there was insufficient information available to justify it. The Court of Appeal found for the Respondent Secretary of State on the facts but it made important statements of principle relating to the powers and duties of the Parole Board, and the appropriateness of Judicial Review in recall cases. 

 


Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

Members practising
in this area:

Academic Consultants