1 Crown Office Row welcomes Matthew Howarth - Jul 2026
Immigration & Asylum – Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals
Matthew’s practice in the field of Immigration Law is mainly in judicial review applications, and statutory appeals appearing in some of the leading cases in this area. He has recently conducted a number of hearings in the Court of Appeal. He is ranked as a leading junior for immigration in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners.
“Matthew is a very effective opponent, pleasant to deal with, realistic and robust, with excellent legal knowledge.” Immigration (Tier 1) – Legal 500 2026
“Matthew Howarth is an established public law barrister, with specialist knowledge across Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals. He is often acting on behalf of the government – appearing on the Attorney General’s Civil and Regulatory panels.” Immigration Leading Junior (Band 2 ) – Chambers & Partners 2026
Immigration Decisions & Asylum
- R (MM) v SSHD (2026) EWHC 448 (Admin): Judicial review concerning the scope of paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010 in the immigration context, the proper forum for Equality Act damages claims alongside judicial review grounds, and the effect of s.44 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 on the lawfulness of earlier immigration detention.
- D1527 v SSHD (2025) (JR-2025-LON-001018): Represented the SSHD in a judicial review on asylum delay and procedural legitimate expectations; Upper Tribunal Judge Norton-Taylor found unlawful delay spanning 41 months, establishing important precedent on the distinction between delay by irrational act and delay by inaction. Declaration of unlawful delay granted.
- R (AM) v SSHD (2025) (JR-2025-LON-000508, unreported): Upper Tribunal judicial review on fresh claim and pending Country Guidance.
- The King (on the application of Makki Shakir Mahmood Al-Fahham) v SSHD (2025) (JR-2024-LON-002411): All grounds of challenge to leave requirements for a representative of an overseas business dismissed; Upper Tribunal Judge Lodato, judgment 12 May 2025. Matthew was instructed by the Government Legal Department
- Ogilvy (aka Alakija) v SSHD (2024) EWCA Civ 315: Significant ruling in the Court of Appeal on statelessness and challenges to deportation orders.
- Roselyn Scott v SSHD (2024) EWHC 3110 (Admin): Successfully defended challenge to refusal of ILR; case concerned Zambrano rights following the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
- R (Hashmat Ali) v SSHD (2024) EWHC 1760 (Admin): Judicial review of SSHD’s decision to certify a protection claim by an Albanian national as totally without merit.
- Tesfazghi v SSHD (JR-2023-MAN-000090): Upper Tribunal Manchester; judicial review on certification of a protection claim following two previously dismissed tribunal claims.
- R (Zubair Ahmed) v SSHD (2022) EWHC 1850 (Admin): Judicial review of SSHD’s decision to cancel leave to remain following TOEIC fraud.
Asylum Support, Equality Act & PSED
Matthew is regularly instructed to defend the SSHD in judicial review and interim relief challenges to asylum support decisions, and to advise on subsequent damages claims for Equality Act 2010, ECHR, and PSED breaches.
- BLZ v SSHD (2025) EWHC 153 (Admin): Leading authority on the Home Office’s obligations to plan for safe release from immigration removal centres and provision of suitable bail accommodation (HOBA) for foreign national offenders with care needs. Led by Jack Holborn
- SK v SSHD (2025) EWHC 3105 (Admin): Administrative Court declined to determine a section 95 adequacy challenge on grounds the claim had become academic on dispersal; clarification of threshold for continuing to a fact-sensitive hearing.
- BRO, R (on the application of) v SSHD EWHC 2231 (Admin): Clarified admissibility standards for medico-legal reports under CPR 35 in complex mental health immigration detention claims; threshold for interim release orders in multi-agency care contexts.
- R (MM) v SSHD (2024) EWHC 1577 (Admin): Judicial review and interim relief involving alleged breaches of s.95 IAA 1999, PSED, Equality Act 2010, and Care Act 2014.
- R (DK) v SSHD (2023) EWHC 2757 (Admin): Successful defence of initial challenge to SSHD’s asylum support and accommodation decision; case subsequently merged into the BLZ
- R (ZOS) v SSHD (2022) EWHC 3567 (Admin): Court reprimanded SSHD for breaching accommodation obligations but extended time for compliance. Led by Tom Tabori.
False Imprisonment
Since 2020 Matthew has been instructed in over 200 claims for false imprisonment and breach of Article 5 ECHR, acting at judicial review, interim relief, and civil damages stages.
- Raphael Olufemi Oluponle v The Home Office (2023) EWHC 3188 (KB): False imprisonment claim partially succeeded; damages of £20,000 awarded for 60 days of unlawful detention.
Sponsorship Licences
Matthew is a recognised specialist in judicial review challenges to sponsor licence revocation and the refusal of Defined Certificates of Sponsorship. He also advises UK businesses on compliance obligations as licence holders.
- Prestige Social Care Services Ltd (R on the application of) v SSHD (2025) EWHC 2860 (Admin) as CA-2025-003140; R (J’S Supermarket Ltd) v SSHD (2025) EWHC 1933 (Admin) as CA-2025-002087: Acting as leading counsel; case to determine whether a ‘non-genuine vacancy’ constitutes dishonesty under Annex C1(z) and the application of s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 in licence revocation decisions. Pending in the Court of Appeal.
- R (Alpine Care UK Limited) v SSHD (2026) EWHC 985 (Admin): Court guidance distinguishing procedural fairness standards in non-dishonesty sponsor licence cases from cases involving allegations of fraud or dishonesty.
- R (J’S Supermarket Ltd) v SSHD (2025) EWHC 1933 (Admin): Successfully represented the SSHD; leading authority on procedural fairness in dishonesty allegations, evidential standards for role mismatches, and the graduated approach to Annex C dishonesty findings under s.31(2A) SCA 1981.
- One Trees Estates Limited v SSHD (2024) EWHC 1644 (Admin): Leading judgment on the SSHD’s power to revoke a sponsor licence and whether a commercial/global assessment is required under a Tameside duty; pending in the Court of Appeal.
- Hartford v SSHD (2024) EWHC 3308 (Admin): Defended SSHD’s refusal of 80+ DCoS applications on genuine vacancy grounds; test of consistency with the Immigration Rules. Matthew was subsequently led by David Manknell KC for the Court of Appeal application that ultimately settled.
Immigration Civil Penalties
Matthew is one of the leading barristers in civil penalties for clandestine entrants and illegal working appeals. He acts for both appellants and the SSHD, and was sole counsel for the respondent in the Court of Appeal in KLG.
- KLG Trucking SRL v SSHD (2024) EWCA Civ 737: Leading Court of Appeal authority on the Carrier Liability Regulations 2023 amendments.
- Transam Trucking BV v SSHD: Successfully represented an appellant haulier; the Court confirmed the burden of proving clandestine entrant liability rests firmly on the SSHD on the balance of probabilities; HHJ Ransom held it was “surprising that the SSHD relies on these inferences” when direct evidence should have been available.
- BM Transport Ltd v SSHD: Successfully represented an appellant at Manchester Crown Court post-KLG; SSHD failed to make out liability under s.32 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
- Link Spolka Z O.O. v SSHD (2021) EWCA Civ 1830: Court of Appeal; instructed at first instance in the leading case on the statutory defence for carriers.
Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking
- AOP v SSHD (2026) EWHC 971 (Admin): Judicial review of a Reasonable Grounds decision under the Modern Slavery Act 2015; confirmed that references to “financial exploitation” in SSHD guidance do not expand the statutory definition to encompass all fraudulent schemes involving financial loss.
- The King (on the application of MXK) v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-001311): Rolled-up hearing before Mrs Justice Ellenbogen; successfully represented the SSHD against claims that SSHD misapplied trafficking policies in determining victim of trafficking status, together with an associated false imprisonment claim; both claims dismissed.
