Jonathan Metzer

Jonathan is regularly instructed by both claimants and defendants in a broad range of complex clinical negligence work. He appears at case management hearings, applications and infant approval hearings. He also regularly prepares pleadings and advises in conference and in writing.

He is recognised as a ‘Leading Junior’ by both legal directories with recent editorial including:

• “Jonathan Metzer consistently provides exceptional legal and strategic knowledge. He is able to get to the crux of the issues whilst putting clients at ease.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jon is a tremendous advocate and a gifted negotiator. He is brilliant with clients.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is responsive and his advice is always clear and detailed. He has an excellent rapport with our clients and handles sensitive and contentious work with skill.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is a fantastic barrister and very professional.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is very reliable as he pays attention to all the details in complex clinical negligence cases. He has a calm, confident manner that makes clients feel at ease.” – Legal 500 2026
• “Jonathan is an excellent advocate. He deals with complex issues very well and explores them thoroughly, with good sensitivity to the client.” – Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Jon is an extremely capable advocate. He is able to rapidly identify the material issues in any case and clearly articulate action required to address them.” – Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Jonathan is very personable and responsive which is really conducive to a great working relationship.” –  Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Jon is an excellent barrister who provides thorough and detailed advice. He is able to manage clients with sensitivity when guiding them through complex litigation.” – Chambers & Partners 2025

Selected Cases

• Advised in conference regarding a claim for injuries arising from retained products of conception. Instructed by the claimant.
• Advised in conference and in writing in a claim concerning the delayed diagnosis of holoprosencephaly in an unborn baby. Instructed by the claimant.
• Advised in writing on liability and quantum, and undertook a settlement approval hearing for a protected‑party claimant who alleged a negligent delay in being admitted to hospital following a major head injury, resulting in a serious haemorrhage.
• Prepared defences to claims that eye surgery had been carried out without a proper consenting process.
• Appeared at a round‑table meeting and advised on quantum in a damages claim arising from the mismanagement of a cholesteatoma, which led to substantial hearing loss and caused psychiatric injury. Instructed by the defendant.
• Advised on quantum and represented the claimant at a round‑table meeting in respect of a damages claim arising from a subarachnoid haemorrhage.

Human rights are a major part of Jonathan’s practice. He has a particular expertise representing claimants in asylum and immigration cases, centred on the right to private and family life (Article 8), the right to asylum or humanitarian protection, the prohibition on inhuman/degrading treatment (Article 3), and unlawful detention.

Jonathan is a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Special Advocates.

In his prison law practice, Jonathan advises and prepares applications for judicial review on behalf of long-sentence prisoners in cases involving the right to liberty (Article 5). This included a challenge to Coronavirus prison restrictions breaching the right to respect private and family life (Article 8).

Jonathan is also instructed in actions against the police including those that arise out of unlawful arrest, detention and use of force.

Jonathan’s inquest practice also regularly involves human rights issues, where the right to life (Article 2) can be engaged.

As human rights issues tend to cut across different legal areas, Jonathan’s human rights practice is set out in more detail under the Immigration, Public Law and Inquests sections of his profile.

Jonathan is also a member of the UK Human Rights Blog‘s editorial team.

Jonathan is ranked as ‘Leading Junior’ by Chambers & Partners for Civil Liberties & Human Rights. Recent editorial includes:

• “Jonathan is an excellent go-to barrister for claims involving deprivation of liberty and other HRA matters.” 
• “Jonathan is at the top of his game in his knowledge of immigration law. He is one of the most formidable practitioners in this area, with excellent skills in written and oral advocacy.” 
• “Jonathan is brilliant on his feet and I have always had phenomenal service.”
• “Jonathan’s pleadings are very thorough and persuasive, and his advice is accurate and to the point.”
• “Jonathan is an absolute star and the quality of his work is outstanding.”
• “Jonathan Metzer is one of the finest asylum and immigration barristers at the Bar.”
• “Whenever I can, I instruct Jonathan.”

Jonathan has extensive experience in asylum and immigration matters. Jonathan regularly appears on behalf of claimants before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in claims of asylum (including cases involving conditions in Afghanistan, Albania, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Uganda), human rights (with extensive experience of cases involving Article 3 and Article 8) and appeals involving issues of retained EU Law. He has achieved significant successes in both the deportation and non-deportation context. He also has considerable experience representing claimants in immigration judicial reviews in both the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal, and in urgent injunction applications against removal (including out of hours). He regularly undertakes work preparing grounds of appeal, grounds for judicial review and pre-action letters before claim. Jonathan has extensive experience representing claimants in unlawful detention claims, including successfully appearing at trial.

His written and oral advocacy on behalf of immigration claimants has been praised by Judges of the High Court, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal.

Jonathan is a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Special Advocates.

Jonathan is recommended as a leading junior by Chambers & Partners. Recent editorial includes:

• “Jonathan is an amazing advocate who very convincingly puts forth his arguments. He is thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable.”
• “Jonathan’s knowledge of immigration law is outstanding.”
• “In each and every case he goes above and beyond the call of duty to ensure we reach our objective.”
• “Jonathan Metzer has an eye for detail, and deals with all of his given cases with sheer determination and passion.”
• “Jonathan’s knowledge of asylum, immigration and public law cases is fantastic.”
• “His written work is brilliant and his advocacy is really good. His pleadings are very thorough and persuasive.”

Selected Cases

Asylum

• Successful appeal on behalf of an Iranian Kurd who was at risk of persecution in Iran due to his political beliefs.
• Successful appeal on behalf of a man whose indefinite leave to remain was cancelled after he was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for dangerous driving whilst intoxicated. Whilst the Judge found that his criminality meant that he was excluded from protection under the Refugee Convention, his claim was accepted in substance and upheld under Article 3 of the European Convention.
• Successful appeal in the Upper Tribunal on behalf of a man whose refugee status was revoked after he was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment for his part in a family-run conspiracy to fraudulently evade duty.
• Successful appeal against deportation for criminal offending on basis of well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka owing to familial connections to LTTE and evidence of significant political activity in the UK.
• Successful appeal by 19 year old Sunni Kurd from Disputed Territories of Iraq under latest Country Guidance.
• Successful appeal by a Ugandan man found to have a well-founded fear of persecution owing to his sexuality.
• Successful appeal against revocation of refugee status arising out of 28-month prison sentence for participation in a large money laundering scheme.
• Prepared claim for ‘Cart’ judicial review arising out of asylum appeal by a North Korean citizen unwilling to cooperate with South Korean authorities owing to concerns about her family, a matter not fully considered by existing Country Guidance.
• Successful appeal on the basis of fear of persecution by Sri Lankan government for perceived support for Tamil Tigers. Applicant had also been sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in the UK.

Immigration

• Successful appeal on behalf of HIV-positive Ghanaian with end stage kidney disease on the basis of Article 3 under principles in AM (Zimbabwe).
• Successful appeal against deportation for historic criminal offending on the basis that this would result in unduly harsh consequences for the appellant’s British citizen child, who suffered from substantial physical and mental health issues. Instructed pro bono via Advocate. Praised in the judgment, with the Judge stating that “It is worth emphasizing that Mr Metzer provided first class representation pro bono.”
• Successful appeal under Article 8 on behalf of an elderly woman dependent on her family in UK due to severe cognitive impairment. Provided advice on evidence and represented the appellant at the hearing.
• Successful appeal under Article 8 outside the Rules on the basis of ‘more than normal emotional ties’ between the Appellant and his brother in the UK.
• Successful appeal against refusal of entry clearance for Brazilian mother (with British citizen child) to join Scottish father in the UK.
• Successful appeal on behalf of an unmarried partner under the EEA Regulations. Praised in the judgment for providing “an excellent skeleton argument”.
• Successful appeal before the Upper Tribunal arising out of failure to apply principles relating to a ‘qualifying child’.
• Successful appeal before the FTT on the basis of family life outside the Immigration Rules.
• Successfully appeared at FTT and Upper Tribunal in an appeal on the basis of private life outside the Immigration Rules in circumstances where the Legal Ombudsman had found that the claimant had received “poor service” from his previous solicitors. Instructed through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
• Successful appeal against a refusal on the basis of a 'marriage of convenience'. Praised in the judgment for "a thoroughly professional attitude".
• Appeal before Upper Tribunal under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules. Instructed through the Bar Pro Bono Unit.

Judicial Review

• Successful claim for judicial review arising from refusal of visit visa. SSHD agreed to reconsider decision following service of written grounds.
• Successful claim for judicial review arising from unreasonable refusal of Article 8 claim without right of appeal. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission on the papers.
• Substantive judicial review hearing in the Upper Tribunal on behalf of a care worker whose visa was cancelled for unlawful work at a restaurant, after permission to proceed was granted.
• Permission to apply for judicial review granted at oral hearing in relation to a claim that the SSHD erred in assessment of whether Section 3C Leave had been extinguished. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission.
• Successful judicial review of refusal of visit visas on the basis that the immigration interviews were conducted unfairly. Decision withdrawn and visit visas granted following consideration of written grounds.
• Out of hours application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to the Philippines. Praised by the judge for arguing “with considerable determination and ingenuity”.
• Out of hours application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to Afghanistan. Prepared judicial review grounds and undertook telephone hearing.
• Upper Tribunal judicial review arising out of defective service of a decision notice. Prepared amended grounds and undertook hearing. Subsequently instructed to prepare application for appeal out of time.

Unlawful Detention

• Successful representation at two day-trial of unlawful detention claim brought with reference to the Home Office Adults at Risk policy, with £20,000 in damages awarded.
• Prepared Particulars of Claim, advised on quantum and appeared at hearings in unlawful detention claim under Hemmati case and also the Transfer for Determination of an Application for International Protection (Detention) (Significant Risk of Absconding Criteria) Regulations 2017, which settled successfully shortly before trial.
• Prepared the Particulars of Claim and advised on quantum on behalf of a man held in immigration detention for two periods, comprising almost 15 months and approximately three months.
• Prepared Particulars of Claim in unlawful detention claim which included alleged failure to identify claimant as a person who was a victim of modern slavery. Claim successfully settled.

Inquests in the Coroners’ Court form a significant part of Jonathan’s practice. He frequently appears in cases involving medical or psychiatric treatment, including apparent suicide, deaths on the road, and deaths in custody. He has extensive experience in witness handling, preparing written submissions, conducting Article 2 inquests, and appearing before coroners and juries.

Jonathan is recommended as a leading junior by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. Recent editorial includes:

• “He was really forensic and very thorough in going through the papers. His drafting was great, as was his advocacy.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is doggedly determined to obtain the answers bereaved relatives need and is adept at flexing his approach and tacking when unexpected evidence comes to light.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan’s drafting is very comprehensive. He is capable on his feet and able to adapt.” –  Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is a thorough, considered and highly capable counsel. He has a measured and considerate manner with witnesses, giving them confidence and support.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• ‘Jonathan is an absolute star.’ – Legal 500 2026
• “Jonathan has a unique disarming style that is very effective in engendering the confidence of the court.  He is very thorough and calm under pressure.” –  Legal 500 2025
• “Jonathan is very thorough and sensible. He has a very disarming advocacy style.” – Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Faultless at inquests.” – Chambers & Partners 2025

Selected Cases

• Two-week Article 2 inquest into death of man with Down’s syndrome held under Mental Health Act. Narrative conclusion in which jury found that the deceased died due to “inadequate weight management”, “failure to diagnose obesity hypoventilation syndrome”, “inadequate consideration of the use of promethazine” and a “failure to identify the seriousness of a life-threatening situation”. Coroner made Regulation 28 report identifying total of 16 items of concern relating to two different bodies. Instructed by the family.
• Nine-day Article 2 inquest heard before a jury. It related to the death of a man from injuries caused to him after he stole a white van and was caught by the victim and the victim’s friend. The case involved consideration of the procedure for arranging a medical assessment for an individual who enters police custody. Instructed by the healthcare provider.
• Two-day inquest into the death of a five-year old boy who drowned in the swimming pool of a holiday park in Cornwall. The Coroner made a Prevention of Future Deaths Report arising from the fact that the park operator did not provide lifeguards for the pool. Instructed by the family.
• Four-day Article 2 inquest before a jury. The deceased died in police custody from a seizure as a result of alcohol dependency, in circumstances where he was attended upon by Healthcare Professionals but was not properly assessed and his dosage of Chlordiazepoxide medication was not adjusted as it should have been. Expert evidence was heard on this. Instructed by the healthcare provider.
• Seven-day Article 2 inquest with the witnesses including five National Highways employees. Despite submissions from the family, their conduct was not criticised, but praised. The deceased walked from the M1 hard shoulder into the path of a lorry. Prior to this, he crashed his car but was assessed by National Highways officers as not being at risk if left to await recovery. Instructed by National Highways.
• Four-day The deceased died aged 32 after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage shortly after giving birth, caused by pre-eclampsia. The coroner did not find neglect, nor that death would have been averted had it not been for the error. No Prevention of Future Deaths Report was made in view of the learning that had been implemented since. Instructed by the NHS Trust.
• Four-day Article 2 inquest before a jury. A 30-year-old woman was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. She was allowed out unescorted for a cigarette and absconded, and was subsequently found unresponsive on a park bench. It was concluded that shortfalls in her care may have contributed to her death, including inadequate hospital drug outreach policies and education on drug misuse, and a lack of professional curiosity by members of staff. Instructed by the family.
• Article 2 inquest with jury heard over four days after deceased took own life by hanging. Narrative conclusion in which jury found that the timing of a Mental Health Act assessment was inadequate, there was a failure by the ambulance crew to initiate a risk assessment on arrival at the property and that there was widespread insufficient communication between all services. Instructed by the family.
• Four-day Article 2 inquest with jury after deceased took own life by drowning. Jury recorded causative failings by hospital mental health nurses in assessing level of risk in days leading up to the death. Instructed by the family.
• Two-day inquest into a death of an elderly woman with obesity who developed a pressure sore which became septic while she was bedbound. Acted for her GP, whom the Coroner excluded from criticism in his conclusion.
• Six-day inquest convened under Article 2 into the deaths of a married couple who were discovered with multiple stab wounds hours after the husband had been discharged from hospital after attempting suicide. Coroner recorded a narrative conclusion which included significant criticisms of the care provided at the mental health hospital trust. Instructed by the family.
• Inquest arising from death of elderly women following failure by hospital trust to arrange adequate anticoagulation follow-up, amid serious allegations of abuse by care home. Instructed by the family.
• Two-day inquest arising out of a death after 24 hours in intensive care following a failed intubation. Represented consultant intensivist who had been subject to significant but poorly-founded criticism in the hospital trust’s serious incident report.  
• Deceased died after a two-week period in hospital in which she did not receive a necessary operation to reattach her gastric feeding tube. Article 2 inquest with conclusion which included finding of neglect by hospital trust in three separate ways. Instructed by the family.
• Deceased discovered in state of asphyxiation at his local park. Conclusion of suicide recorded. Instructed by GP who had had consultation with deceased several days before his death.
• Deceased died after apparently jumping off cliff over the Port of Dover. Article 2 inquest with narrative conclusion. Coroner also wrote a letter to the Care Quality Commission regarding his concerns. Instructed by the family.

Jonathan is frequently instructed by claimants in judicial reviews, and he has considerable experience in both the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal. He is a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Special Advocates. He also practises in prison law, where he has undertaken work for long-sentence prisoners in relation to potential claims for judicial review, and represented families in a legal challenge to Coronavirus prison restrictions breaching right to family life.

He is appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Civil Counsel and is a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Special Advocates.

Jonathan is recommended as a leading junior by Chambers & Partners.

Selected Cases

• Successful judicial review claim in relation to refusal of an oral hearing to consider security categorization of prisoner serving life sentence for murder. Permission granted at oral hearing in High Court, following which claim was settled successfully. Instructed by the claimant.
• Judicial review on behalf of the charity Campaign Against Antisemitism after an interim medical practitioners’ tribunal decided not to suspend a doctor pending an investigation into her fitness to practise following alleged antisemitic activity on social media. The doctor was subsequently suspended. The case received substantial press coverage, e.g. on the BBC.
• Substantive judicial review hearing in the Upper Tribunal on behalf of a care worker whose visa was cancelled for unlawful work at a restaurant, after permission to proceed was granted.
• Successful claim for judicial review arising from refusal of visit visa. SSHD agreed to reconsider decision following service of written grounds.
• Successful claim for judicial review arising from unreasonable refusal of Article 8 claim without right of appeal. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission on the papers.
• Permission to apply for judicial review granted at oral hearing in relation to a claim that the SSHD erred in assessment of whether Section 3C Leave had been extinguished. Decision withdrawn following grant of permission.
• Successful judicial review of refusal of visit visas on the basis that the immigration interviews were conducted unfairly. Decision withdrawn and visit visas granted following consideration of written grounds.
• Out of hours telephone application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to the Philippines. Praised by the judge for arguing “with considerable determination and ingenuity”.
• Out of hours application to the Administrative Court for an urgent injunction against removal to Afghanistan. Prepared judicial review grounds and undertook telephone hearing.
• Upper Tribunal judicial review arising out of defective service of a decision notice. Prepared amended grounds and undertook hearing. Subsequently instructed to prepare application for First-tier Tribunal appeal out of time for which permission was granted.

Jonathan was instructed as junior counsel by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in the Brook House Inquiry and on behalf of a Core Participant in the Undercover Policing Inquiry. He also advised clients in two modules of the Covid Inquiry.

Jonathan is recommended as a leading junior by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500. Recent editorial includes:

• “Jonathan is an absolute star.” – Legal 500 2026
• “He was really forensic and very thorough in going through the papers. His drafting was great, as was his advocacy.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is doggedly determined to obtain the answers bereaved relatives need and is adept at flexing his approach and tacking when unexpected evidence comes to light.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan’s drafting is very comprehensive. He is capable on his feet and able to adapt.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan is a thorough, considered and highly capable counsel. He has a measured and considerate manner with witnesses, giving them confidence and support.” – Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Jonathan has a unique disarming style that is very effective in engendering the confidence of the court.  He is very thorough and calm under pressure.” –  Legal 500 2025
• “Jonathan is very thorough and sensible. He has a very disarming advocacy style.” – Chambers & Partners 2025

Jonathan is regularly instructed in this field. He has considerable experience in cases involving alleged dishonest attempts to evade duty, as well as in non‑restoration cases and condemnation proceedings. He is looking to develop his area of practice to include taxpayer-side work to compliment his HMRC-side practice.

He is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Civil Counsel.

Selected Cases

• Shonubi v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2024] UKFTT 641 (TC): Successful representation at appeal concerning whether a dishonest attempt had been made to import 62,000 cigarettes into the UK without duty being paid;
• Hagi-Nicovici v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2023] UKFTT 967 (TC): Successful representation at appeal concerning the liability of a lorry driver carrying a load of mixed beers on which duty had not been paid;
• Sowa (t/a Nefaria Trans) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2023] UKFTT 87 (TC): Successful representation at two-day appeal relating to decisions to refuse restorations of vehicles used for the transportation of oil on which duty had not been paid.

Jonathan has experience representing claimants in cases of serious abuse, including where there have been severe and long-lasting psychiatric injuries. He advises claimants in damages claims arising from sexual abuse and appeared in the High Court representing one of the victims of Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter. The damages were assessed at over £500,000. The full judgment is available here. Read more about it in the press here and here.

He accepts direct access instruction from lay clients, with particular interest in immigration, public law, inquests and civil matters. For further information please visit his profile here.