Natasha Barnes

Public Law

Natasha has appeared in many of the most high profile judicial reviews in the last few years and is recommended as a leading junior by both Chambers & Partners (Band 1) and Legal 500 (Band 3) for Administrative & Public Law. Chambers & Partners also recognises Natasha as a leading junior for Civil Liberties & Human Rights. Recent editorial includes:

• “Natasha is a highly recommended and excellent junior.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is an extremely good advocate and a trusted lawyer. She is good at handling difficult clients and complex national security work.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha Barnes is hugely impressive.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha Barnes is excellent.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is very sensible and reasonable.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha Barnes is good with clients.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is an absolutely brilliant junior. She is a superb oral and written advocate.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “Natasha is a very sensible barrister and she is good with clients.” Chambers & Partners 2026
• “She can cut through complex arguments quickly and produces a first rate analysis. Her drafting and oral advocacy is succinct and hits the right note with the court. Her manner with lay clients is excellent, carefully explaining the issues in the case and winning their confidence quickly.” L500 2026
• “Natasha is very down-to-earth and she has a practical approach that she brings to difficult legal issues.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Natasha is really clever and really practical, just all over what needs doing.”  Chambers & Partners 2025
• “Natasha Barnes is sharp as a tack and very good on paper. She is just fantastic.” Chambers & Partners 2025
• “She is an exceptionally quick thinker and can see the key point in a case in a flash.  She always has command of the details of a case.” L500 2025

She is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel.

Selected Cases

• Secretary of State for Northern Ireland v Coroner Fee: Advocate to the Supreme Court in the appeal concerning disclosure made during an inquest into an individual’s murder in Belfast during the Troubles.
• Unite & Ors v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (ongoing): High profile challenge to the Government’s decision to restrict those pensioners who are entitled to an annual Winter Fuel Payment.
• TransActual CIC and another v. the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and another[2024] EWHC 1937 (Admin): High profile challenge to the Secretary of State for Health’s decision to impose an emergency ban on puberty blockers. The ban prohibited the dispensing of puberty blockers to children and young persons suffering from gender dysphoria / incongruence, on the basis of prescriptions issued by private and online providers.
• R (AAA & Ors) v SSHD [2023] UKSC 42: Challenge to Government scheme to remove asylum-seekers to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claims.
• R (Cabinet Office) v Chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry [2023] EWHC 1702 (Admin): Challenge to the decision of the Covid-19 Inquiry to compel the Government to provide it with certain WhatsApp message threads.
• R (GA) v SSHD [2022] EWCA Civ 304: Sole counsel before the Court of Appeal concerning whether the Special Immigrations Appeals Commission can refuse a remedy having concluded the SSHD’s decision to refuse GA naturalisation was procedurally unfair on review.
• R (Shahi) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1676: Sole counsel in Court of Appeal concerning the circumstances in which a grant of interim relief should be treated as success for the purposes of granting a Claimant his costs in a judicial review claim where the claim settles before substantive determination by the Court.
• R (Privacy International & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2021] EWCA Civ 330: High-profile challenge to MI5 agents engaging in criminal activity.
• R (Carr) v Secretary of State for Justice (2020): Sole counsel in judicial review of decision not to relax individual’s prison conditions.
• R (Saifullah) v Ministry of Defence (2020): Challenge to adequacy of the investigation into the killing of four Afghan nationals by British armed forces in 2011.
• R v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1772 (Admin): High profile litigation challenging the use of children as informants in criminal investigations, known as the ‘child spy case.’
• R (TN (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 41: Joined lead cases concerning the lawfulness of the Detained Fast Track Rules 2005. 10,000 asylum appeals were heard under the Rules.
• R (NM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2798 (Admin): Sole counsel in a complex trafficking claim involving a 3-day hearing before the High Court.
• R (Nawaz) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 288 (IAC): Sole counsel in a Judicial Review challenge arising out of the ETS language testing fraud.
• R (Siddique) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 570: Sole counsel in proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Natasha successfully argued that the Secretary of State acted lawfully in refusing to issue an appealable removal decision to the Appellant. The Court of Appeal praised parties’ ‘helpful and realistic’ submissions.