Ivan Hare

Ivan has an in-depth knowledge of public law and human rights upon which he has taught and published extensively. Since starting practice, he has advised or acted in proceedings for or against a range of public authorities, including many government departments, Ofcom, the General Medical Council, ITV, the Law Society, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Liberal Democrat Party, Ofgem, the BBC, the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Services Authority, Ofsted, the Bar Council, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Parole Board, the Legal Services Ombudsman, the Metropolitan Police and several local authorities. He has also acted for a number of foreign governments in constitutional controversies and human rights challenges. Ivan appears frequently in the Administrative Court.  He has also appeared before a number of public and regulatory tribunals, including the Information Tribunal, Ofcom’s Broadcasting Sanctions Committee, the General Social Care Council and the General Teaching Council. He was appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of counsel in 2007 and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s panel in 2010.

• R (Castle & Ors) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
  Ivan appeared successfully before the Divisional Court on behalf of the Commissioner in this judicial review of the policing of the student protests which took place in London on 24 November 2010 and the use of containment as a method of crowd control.  The judgment provides guidance on the extent to the Police’s duties to take account of the welfare of children in dealing with public order situations.
• R (Cockburn) v Secretary of State for Health [2011] EWHC 2095 (Admin)
  Ivan successfully on behalf of the Secretary of State (with James Eadie QC) in July 2011 in this judicial review on gender discrimination grounds of NHS pension provision for widowers.  The case will have a significant impact on the majority of public sector pension schemes.
• R (Bhadra & Ors) v Secretary of State for Health (CO/1897/2011)
  Ivan successfully defended this judicial review of the Health and Social Care Bill (currently before Parliament) and the decision not to transfer regulatory functions from the General Medical Council to the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator.  Permission to seek judicial review was refused on 26 May 2011.
• R (Gaunt) v OFCOM  [2011] EWCA Civ 692
  Ivan intervened on behalf of Liberty in this important Court of Appeal case on the extent of freedom of political speech in broadcasting.  The controversial radio presenter and Sun columnist, Jon Gaunt, sought judicial review of Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints relating to his interview with a local councilor in the course of which Mr Gaunt repeatedly described the councilor as a "Nazi".  The decision is a leading authority on the lawful extent of extreme speech in the broadcast media.
• Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd (ET/3105555/09, 31 January 2011)
  Ivan appeared successfully in the Employment Tribunal on behalf of the well-known animal rights activist, Joe Hashman.  The case establishes that Mr Hashman’s beliefs in the sanctity of life (including his strong opposition to hunting) constitute protected philosophical beliefs for the purposes of human rights and discrimination law.  The case follows Ivan’s success in the leading case on this issue: Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360; [2010] 2 All ER 253; [2010] IRLR 4.
• Ponsonby v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Upper Tribunal, CP/2234/2007) (2009)
  Ivan appeared pro bono for the claimant in this successful appeal on the pension rights of male-to-female transsexuals who have made national insurance contributions as a male and underwent gender reassignment after retirement. 
• YL v Birmingham City Council & Ors [2007] UKHL 27; [2008] 1 AC 95; [2007] 3 WLR 112; [2007] 3 All ER 957
  Ivan appeared successfully in the Court of Appeal (alone) and in the House of Lords (with Beverley Lang QC) in what is the leading case on the definition of a “public authority” for the purposes of s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Saadi v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 17
  Ivan acted successfully (with Lord Pannick QC) on behalf of the United Kingdom government in this Strasbourg challenge under Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the use of detention centres for certain categories of asylum seeker.
• Pay v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR SE2; [2009] IRLR 139
  Ivan was instructed by Liberty in this application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the use of Convention arguments in employment disputes and the scope of the right to privacy.  Mr Pay was dismissed from his job as a probation officer with Lancashire Probation Service for participating in BD-SM acts in private clubs in his spare time.
• R (Eisai Ltd) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [2008] EWCA Civ 438; (2008) 11 CCL Rep 385; [2008] LS Law Medical 333; (2008) 101 BMLR 26
  Ivan intervened on behalf of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries in this successful appeal about the method used for determining the availability on the NHS of the drug Aricept, a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
• Price v Leeds City Council [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 AC 465; [2006] 4 All ER 128; (2006) 20 BHRC 33
  Ivan was instructed by Justice and Liberty (with Tom de la Mare) as intervener in this appeal to a 7-member House of Lords on whether the Human Rights Act affected the doctrine of precedent.
• Mohit v Director Public Prosecutions of Mauritius [2006] UKPC 20; [2006] 1 WLR 3343
  Ivan appeared (with Michael Fordham QC) in this important Privy Council decision on the availability and scope of judicial review of the DPP’s power to terminate a number of private prosecutions brought against the then Prime Minister of Mauritius.

Ivan has appeared in a number of leading cases on regulation of the medical profession, including:

• General Medical Council v Fatnani and Raschid [2007] EWCA Civ 46; [2007] 1 WLR 1460; [2007] ICR 811
  Ivan appeared successfully in the Court of Appeal (with Robert Englehart QC) in these cases in which the Court lays down guidance as to the approach to be adopted by the High Court in appeals against sanctions imposed by regulatory bodies.
• Zygmunt v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 2643 (Admin); [2009] LS Medical Law 219
  Ivan appeared for the GMC in this leading case on the definition of impairment of fitness to practise.
• General Medical Council v Vaidya [2010] EWHC 2873
  Ivan successfully obtained a General Civil Restraint Order against a doctor who had issued numerous sets of proceedings against the GMC and others since his erasure from the medical register.

Ivan has appeared successfully in a number of cases on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including:

• R (Armstrong) v Independent Police Complaints Commission (19 May 2011)
  Ivan successfully resisted this high-profile judicial review concerning an incident in 2009 in Nottingham when the Claimant was "Tasered" seven times in the course of his arrest.  The Administrative Court upheld the IPCC’s findings that, in the unusual circumstances of the case, the force used was reasonable.
• R (Goodenough) v Independent Police Complaints Commission [2009] EWHC 3706 (Admin)
  Ivan appeared successfully on behalf of the IPCC in resisting the re-opening of the disciplinary cases against members of the Oxford Constabulary relating to the death of Robin Goodenough in the course of his arrest.

Ivan has advised on a number of high-profile public law matters, including:

• South Downs National Park
  Ivan advised the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (with James Eadie QC) in relation to the decision, announced on 31 March 2009, to designate the South Downs National Park.
• Child Migrant Policy
  Ivan advised (with James Eadie QC) on the Government apology in February 2010 to the 130,000 children sent overseas pursuant to previous governments’ policies.

Ivan frequently appears in Employment Tribunals for Claimants and Respondents in cases involving unfair dismissal, redundancy, discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability, religion and belief and sexual orientation, public interest disclosures, equal pay and the transfer of undertakings.  He has successfully conducted a number of complex and lengthy discrimination claims.  He has also appeared on numerous occasions in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. 

Ivan has advised on a range of employment matters, including breach of contract, bonus claims and share options and on issues arising under the Data Protection Act 1998.  He has also acted as a co-ordinator for Employment Tribunal advocacy training organised by the Employment Lawyers Association.  Ivan has acted for a number of appellants pro bono under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme.

• Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd (ET/3105555/09, 31 January 2011)
  Ivan appeared successfully in the Employment Tribunal on behalf of the well-known animal rights activist, Joe Hashman.  The case establishes that Mr Hashman’s beliefs in the sanctity of life (including his strong opposition to hunting) constitute protected philosophical beliefs for the purposes of discrimination law.   
• Grainger Plc v Nicholson  [2010] ICR 360; [2010] 2 All ER 253; [2010] IRLR 4
  Ivan appeared successfully (with Dinah Rose QC) on behalf of the employee in this appeal to the EAT about whether views on human responsibility concerning climate change can constitute a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Religion and Belief Regulations.
• Hinton v University of East London [2005] EWCA Civ 532; [2005] ICR 1260; [2005] IRLR 552
  Ivan successfully represented the appellant before the Court of Appeal in what is now the leading case on compromise agreements.
• NTL Group Ltd v Difolco [2006] EWCA Civ 1508; (2006) 150 Sol Jo LB 1393
  Ivan appeared for the respondent in this Court of Appeal decision defining the matters which must be addressed by the Employment Tribunal before making a finding of failure to make reasonable adjustments in a disability discrimination claim.
• Kier Islington Ltd v Pelzman (UKEAT/0266/10/DM, 15 December 2010)
  Ivan successfully overturned the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed in this gross misconduct case.

Other practice areas:

In his earlier years, Ivan also practised in the fields of commercial and entertainment law. 

This included:

Gastronome (UK) Ltd v Anglo-Dutch Meats (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1233; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 587; [2006] All ER (D) 377
Ivan appeared in the High Court trial and subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal in these proceedings about the limits of contractual construction (of a guarantee) and the doctrine of misnomer.

Academic and Other Work:

Ivan was elected a Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1991.  He was also a University Lecturer in the Law Faculty and the founding Assistant Director of the Centre for Public Law (of which he remains an Associate Fellow) in the University of Cambridge.  At Cambridge, he taught a range of courses in Public Law and Human Rights to undergraduate and postgraduate students.  Ivan has made invited written and oral submissions to the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Religious Offences and to the Council of Liberty.  He has also been a specialist advisory member of Liberty’s Committee on Privacy and Freedom of Expression.  Ivan’s 2006 article on incitement to religious hatred (see below) was used by Liberty as its briefing to Parliament on the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Ivan also advised English PEN on the compatibility of the imposition of exploitation proceeds orders on authors with Article 10 of the ECHR.  His publications have been cited with approval by courts up to the House of Lords and appear on University reading lists in a number of jurisdictions.

He also held visiting appointments at a number of university law schools in the United States and the continent of Europe, including Columbia University, New York University, Duke University Law School and the University of Hamburg.  In addition, he has lectured to audiences of judges, practitioners and students in several overseas jurisdictions, including India, South Africa and Pakistan.  Between 2004-2008, he was appointed Amelia Lewis Distinguished Visiting Professor of Comparative Public Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. 

Before being called to the Bar, Ivan won 'The Observer' National Mooting Competition, the Commonwealth Mooting Competition and the Master Tapp Award for mooting at Gray's Inn.

Publications:

Books:

• De Smith’s Judicial Review - First Supplement to the Sixth Edition (Sweet and Maxwell, 2010) (with A. Le Sueur and C.M. Donnelly)
• Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2009) (co-edited with J. Weinstein) (paperback edition, 2010).
• Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998, re-printed 1998 (twice), 1999 (twice), 2000) (co-edited with J. Beatson and C.F. Forsyth).
• The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord - Essays on Public Law in Honour of Sir William Wade (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, re-printed 2001) (co-edited with C. F. Forsyth).

Articles and Book Chapters:

• ‘Race Discrimination’ (co-written) in Tolley’s Discrimination in Employment Handbook (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2nd ed, 2011).
• ‘Introduction’ (with P. Goulding QC) and ‘Contempt of Court’ in P. Goulding QC (ed), Employee Competition: Covenants, Confidentiality, and Garden Leave (OUP, 2nd ed, 2011). 
• ‘Convention Rights as Grounds for Judicial Review’, ‘CPR Part 54 Claims for Judicial Review’ and ‘Judicial Review Remedies’ in De Smith’s Judicial Review - First Supplement to the Sixth Edition (Sweet and Maxwell, 2010).
• ‘Free Speech and Democracy’ [2009] Entertainment Law Review 287-90 (with J. Weinstein).
• ‘Blasphemy and Incitement to Religious Hatred: Free Speech Dogma and Doctrine’ in I. Hare and J. Weinstein (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (OUP, 2009), 289-310.
• ‘Extreme Speech under International and Regional Human Rights Standards’ in Hare and Weinstein (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy, 62-80.
• ‘Race Discrimination’ (co-written) in Tolley’s Discrimination in Employment Handbook (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2008), 233-271.
• ‘Convention Rights as Grounds of Judicial Review’ in De Smith’s Judicial Review (Sweet and Maxwell, 6th ed, 2007), 651-700.
• ‘Introduction’ (with P. Goulding QC) and ‘Contempt of Court’ in P. Goulding QC (ed), Employee Competition: Covenants, Confidentiality, and Garden Leave (OUP, 2007).
• ‘Crosses, Crescents and Sacred Cows: Criminalising Incitement to Religious Hatred’ [2006] Public Law 520-537.
• ‘Permission’ in B. Lang QC (ed), Administrative Court: Practice and Procedure (Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), 99-115.
• ‘Method and Objectivity in Free Speech Adjudication: Lessons from America’ [2005] 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 49-87.
• ‘The Judiciary’ in the U.N.E.S.C.O Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems 2004 .
• ‘Social Rights as Fundamental Rights’ in B. A. Hepple (ed), Social and Labour Rights in a Global Context: International and Comparative Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 153-181.
• ‘Verticality Challenged: Private Parties, Privacy and the Human Rights Act’ [2001] European Human Rights Law Review 508-522.
• ‘Is the Privileged Position of Political Speech Justified?’ in J. Beatson and Y. Cripps (eds), Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information–Essays in Honour of Sir David Williams QC (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 105-121.
• ‘The Law of Standing in Public Interest Adjudication’ in M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve (eds), Judicial Review in International Perspective: Liber Amicorum for Lord Slynn of Hadley Volume II (Kluwer Law International, 2000), 301-318.
• ‘English Lessons in Comparative Public Law: Will the First Amendment have the Last Word?’ (2000) 10 Trinity Law Review/Special Edition on International Human Rights 29-61.
• ‘Police Discretion and the Rule of Law: Economic Community Rights versus Civil Rights’ [2000] 63 Modern Law Review 581-595 (with C. S. Barnard).
• ‘Access to Governmental Information and the Judicial Process: United Kingdom Law and the Influence of Europe’ in A. Dashwood and A. Ward (eds) [1999] Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 329-354.
• ‘The Separation of Powers and Judicial Review for Error of Law’ in Forsyth and Hare (eds), The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord–Essays on Public Law in Honour of Sir William Wade (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 113-140.
• ‘The Constitution and the Justification of Judicial Power’ in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds), New Directions in European Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998), 125-135.
•  ‘Legislating Against Hate: the Legal Response to Bias Crimes’ [1997] 17 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 415-440.
• ‘The Right to Protest and the Right to Export: Police Discretion and the Free Movement of Goods’ [1997] 60 M.L.R. 394-411 (with C. S. Barnard).
• ‘The Law Commission and Judicial Review: Principle Versus Pragmatism’ [1995] 54 Cambridge Law Journal 268-279.
• ‘Savage & Parmenter: A Compelling Case For The Code’ [1993] 56 M.L.R. 74-83.

Commentaries and Review Articles:

• ‘Hate Speech’ in P. Cane and J. Conaghan, The New Oxford Companion to Law (OUP, 2008)
• ‘Inflammatory Speech: Cross-Burning and the First Amendment’ [2003] P.L. 408-414
• ‘The South African AIDS Pandemic and the Constitutional Right to Healthcare’ [2002] E.H.R.L.R. 66-72
• Review of H. Delany: Judicial Review of Administrative Action–A Comparative Analysis (2002) Dublin University Law Journal 226-230
• Review of I. Loveland (ed): Importing the First Amendment–Freedom of Speech and Expression in Britain, Europe and the USA (2000) 11 Public Law Review 312-316
• ‘Gender Discrimination and Grooming Codes in the Labour (super)Market’ [1995] 1 International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 179-185
• ‘Pregnancy and Sex Discrimination’ (1991) Industrial Law Journal 124-130

Case Notes:

[2006] New Law Journal 1091; [2003] 62 C.L.J. 525; [2001] 60 C.L.J. 1; [2000] 59 C.L.J. 6; [2000] 59 C.L.J. 1; [1999] 58 C.L.J. 468; [1999] 58 C.L.J. 265; [1998] 57 C.L.J. 429; [1996] 55 C.L.J. 401; [1996] 55 C.L.J. 179; [1995] 54 C.L.J. 227; [1995] 54 C.L.J. 1; [1994] 53 C.L.J. 4; [1992] 51 C.L.J. 201

Book Reviews:

[2002] E.H.R.L.R. 802; [2002] P.L. 156; [2000] 59 C.L.J. 406; [2000] 59 C.L.J. 216; [1998] 57 C.L.J. 624; [1998] 57 C.L.J. 410; [1998] 57 C.L.J. 200; [1997] 56 C.L.J. 636; [1997] 56 C.L.J. 426; [1995] 54 C.L.J. 199

Other Information:

VAT registration number:  832321953