Matthew Howarth

Public Law & Judicial Review

Matthew is a specialist public law barrister with a high-volume judicial review practice. He acts for and against government departments, public bodies, and private clients across a wide range of administrative law challenges, including irrationality, procedural unfairness, legitimate expectation, human rights, and damages claims for unlawful detention and false imprisonment.

“Deeply knowledgeable, has acted on a lot of the leading cases in the area. Personable, friendly but also excellent on his feet and incredibly knowledgeable regarding a lot of different and discrete areas of public law.” Administrative Law and Human Rights (Tier 1) – Legal 500 2026

“The ‘clear and concise’ Matthew Howarth has a broad range of administrative law experience in judicial reviews, immigration appeals and on cases concerning the Care Act 2014.” Administrative Law and Human Rights (Tier 1) – Legal 500 2026

Prison Law & Parole

Matthew acts extensively in judicial review and public law claims for and against the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Parole Board, and the Courts. He advises on categorisation, open conditions transfers, home detention curfew, and false imprisonment claims.

• R (Sabbagh-Parry) v SSHD and Secretary of State for Justice (2026) EWHC 501 (Admin): Successful defence of a challenge to the SSHD’s pursuit of deportation action and the SSJ’s decisions refusing home detention curfew and Category D status.
• R (Hossain) v Secretary of State for Justice (2026) EWHC 862 (Admin): Judicial review of SSJ’s decision to impose a licence exclusion zone; irrationality and procedural unfairness challenges dismissed.
• Dean Hallam, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice (2024) EWHC 2873 (Admin): Successful defence of a judicial review challenging refusal to transfer a prisoner from closed to open conditions.
• AA v Parole Board (unreported): Matthew defended a claim for false imprisonment and allegation of unlawful Parole Board assessment regarding release from prison.
• R (Sierotko and another) v Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square (2023) EWHC 1187 (Admin): Judicial review challenging custody time limit calculations.

Merton Age Assessments

Matthew regularly represents local authorities defending judicial review challenges to Merton-compliant age assessments of asylum seekers, at both interim relief and substantive hearing stages.

• FW v Oldham Council: Interim relief challenge to alleged failure to carry out a Merton age assessment and to provide support to an asylum seeker claiming to be under 18.
• H v Westmorland Council: Permission and interim relief hearing at Manchester High Court challenging a Merton age assessment.
• M v Oldham Council: Drafting of advice and pleadings in a judicial review challenge for failure to provide support to an under-18 asylum seeker.