David Manknell

Public Law

David has acted in hundreds of claims for judicial review across a broad range of areas including immigration and asylum, healthcare, prison law and criminal justice, regulatory proceedings, education, licensing, pensions and benefits, and national security matters, and often on further appeal to the Court of Appeal. He has particular expertise in cases involving direct challenges to policy changes, including issues about consultation. Many of his cases concern issues of equality and discrimination law.

He has been a member of the Attorney-General’s panel of Counsel since 2006 and was appointed to the A-Panel in 2015 (reappointed in 2019). He is regularly instructed in cases that are high profile, and often featured in the national press, and those which relate to very sensitive issues for his clients.

Examples of his work in immigration and asylum include the legal challenges to the accommodation of asylum seekers in Napier Barracks (R(NB) v SSHD), the Detention Action case in respect of the use of immigration detention during the Covid-19 lockdown, the “burka ban” case in the Court of Appeal on removals of Muslims to France (R(Baradaran v SSHD) and the cases about Home Office actions in the Calais ‘jungle’ camp (Citizens UK) and relocation of child refugees under the Dubs Amendment (R(Help Refugees).

In the sphere of justice and prison law, David’s experience includes acting for the Parole Board in a series of cases, including in R(Osborn) v Parole Board, the leading case on procedural fairness under Article 5, all the way to the Supreme Court. Other cases include R(X) v NPS in respect of the separation of a terrorist from his children when released on licence, R(LW) v Sodexo and SSJ, which is the leading authority on the division of responsibility between the state and a private prison operator, and R(Ali) v SSJ, on the ban introduced on sending books to prisoners.

Other significant public law cases include a number of cases about the adequacy of consultation processes, including challenges to consultations for Building Regulations made after the Grenfell Tower fire (R(BBSA) v SSHCLG), and to the consultation process for reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (R(Mitchell) v SSJ).

David has also been junior counsel to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the claims about GCHQ surveillance arising from the Edward Snowden leaks, and has represented the UK in a claim in Strasbourg about stateless Palestinians.

He has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of procedure for judicial review, including where urgent and immediate relief is needed from the Court.

Selected Cases

• HM Senior Coroner for West Sussex v Chief Constable of Sussex [2022] EWHC 215 (QB). Application by the Senior Coroner for West Sussex to the High Court on matters relating to the scope of the Shoreham inquest.
• R(NB) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin); [2021] 4 W.L.R. 92. Represented the SSHD in this challenge to the accommodation of asylum seekers at Napier former military barracks.
• R(Mitchell) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 2248 (Admin); [2021] A.C.D. 112: Represented the SSJ in this challenge to the consultation process for reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
• R (Abidoye) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 1425: Successful in Court of Appeal over challenge to deportation policy.
• R(Detention Action) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 732 (Admin): Challenge to part of the Government’s Covid-19 response, namely the continuing immigration detention, and established the wide margin of appreciation for Covid-related operational choices
• R(LW) v Sodexo and Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 367 (Admin) [2019] 1 W.L.R. 5654. A challenge to the SSJ for breaches of human rights caused by the private prisoner operator. The leading case on the residual responsibilities of the SSJ.
• National Probation Service v Blackfriars Crown Court Citizens UK v SSHD [2019] EWHC 529 (Admin). Appeal that decided whether the Crown Court can extend the time for completion of unpaid work under a community order after the end date specified in the order.
• R(British Blind and Shutter Association) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3162 (Admin). Judicial review decision, quashing Building Regulations made following the Grenfell Tower fire, which banned the use of external shutters, blinds and awnings on high-rise residential buildings.
• SSHD v ZAT & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 810; [2016] 1 W.L.R. 4894, and R(ZAT) v SSHD [2016] UKUT 61
• (IAC): The Calais children litigation. This was the joined cases concerning children residing in the camp known as the jungle in Calais. The legal issue was the extent to which the UK was obliged to admit those who claimed to have family in the UK, when they had not claimed asylum in France.
• R (MK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 3573: Complex judicial review involving a systemic challenge to the speed of Home Office decision-making in respect of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
• BBC & Press v SSHD & AAIB [2019] EWHC 135: High Court refusal of BBC application for Shoreham Air Crash cockpit footgage.
• Kimathi & others v FCO[2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) (02 August 2018): Instructed in the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (Mau Mau insurgency).
• R (Help Refugees Ltd) v SSHD [2017] 4 WLR: Defended the SSHD’s implementation of the ‘Dubs Amendment’ scheme under s.67 of the Immigration Act 2016. Issues in respect of the consultation process, the setting of the number of children to be transferred, and the process adopted.
• Citizens UK v SSHD [2017] EWHC 2301 (Admin): Defended the SSHD’s procedures following the closure of the camp in Calais (‘The Jungle’).
• R (X) v National Probation Service [2017] EWCA Civ 155: Lawfulness of separating terrorist offender from his children during probation period, without proceedings under the Children Act.
• SSHD v ZAT & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 810; [2016] 1 W.L.R. 4894, and R(ZAT) v SSHD [2016] UKUT 61
• (IAC): The Calais children litigation. This was the joined cases concerning children residing in the camp known as the jungle in Calais. The legal issue was the extent to which the UK was obliged to admit those who claimed to have family in the UK, when they had not claimed asylum in France.
• R (Pour & Others) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 401 (Admin); [2016] 2 C.M.L.R. 47: Four joined test cases which concerned whether asylum seekers can be returned to Cyprus as a safe third country, given alleged deficiencies in Cypriot procedure and facilities.
• Chief Constable for Sussex v Secretary of State for Transport [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB): Acted on behalf of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in this case. This was the first determination in England & Wales in respect of an application for disclosure of material protected pursuant to the Chicago Convention for use in a prosecution.
• Liberty v GCHQ & Foreign Secretary [2015] 3 All E.R. 212; [2015] 1 Cr. App. R. 24; [2015] H.R.L.R.
• 7: David acted as Junior Counsel to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal the claim based on alleged mass surveillance that was brought against GCHQ.
• R (Ali) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 2221 (Admin): Controversial case concerned the lawfulness of the “book ban” that prevented prisoners from receiving books and other material sent to them from outside the prison.
• R (B) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 854; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 4188: The “burka ban” case, in the Court of Appeal. This concerned whether the French burka ban prevented removal to France of a young asylum seeker who wore the burka, and would not be permitted to attend school in France.
• R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] A.C. 1115; [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1020: In this case the Supreme Court gave guidance about the circumstances in which the Parole Board was required to hold an oral hearing in order to comply with its common law duty of fairness and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5(4) when determining a prisoner’s application for release or transfer to open prison conditions.
• L1 v SSHD [2013] EWCA 906: National security appeal from SIAC: issues regarding use of closed material at the strike out stage, and whether an abuse of process to serve a deprivation decision when Appellant out of the country.
• R (Sturnham) v Parole Board & SSJ [2012] EWCA Civ 452: Prison law: Right to damages for breach of Article 5(4) for a delayed hearing.)
• NP (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 906: Immigration: Whether Secretary of State can rely on internal relocation in an appeal to the UT, when it did not form part of their case in the original refusal or the FTT.
• R (Chen) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 2531 (Admin): Alleged discrimination in system of accommodation support for asylum seekers.
• RS (Pakistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 434: Immigration / education: Students who fail their examinations cannot remain in the United Kingdom as students whilst waiting to re-sit the examinations, unless they are in the meantime attending a full-time course of study.
• SS & Others (Sovereign immunity claim – Certificate conclusive) Malaysia [2009] UKAIT
• 00007: International law: refusal to extend sovereign or diplomatic immunity to the Sultan of Pahang, Malaysia under the State Immunity Act 1978 and the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.