Mark Shaw QC

Public & administrative:

Mark regularly appears in the Administrative Court and in the appellate courts usually on behalf of defendants in judicial review claims and often in cases with a prominent human rights element, as well as in statutory tribunals.  His particular areas of expertise (including advisory work) cover central government bodies, professional disciplinary and regulatory agencies (such as the GMC, other healthcare regulators, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Health and Safety Executive), immigration control, local government, media (BBC) and licensing.  Although Mark now has a broad client base, his experience and expertise are rooted in ten years’ service as Junior Counsel to the Crown (three years on the “B Panel” from 1992 to 1995 followed by seven years on the “A Panel” from 1995 to 2002).  In that role he has appeared in numerous leading and high profile cases in the UK and in Strasbourg, including the challenges by Myra Hindley and by the killers of James Bulger to their life sentences for murder as well as the applications to the Parole Board by the latter for release.  Crown Panel membership had to be relinquished on taking silk but, in Mark’s case, it has been replaced by appointment (renewed in March 2004 for a further five years) to the Attorney General’s panel of “Leading Special Advocates” cleared by the Security Services to act for alleged terrorists in relation to classified material before the High Court (dealing with control orders curtailing liberty), the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (dealing with national security immigration cases) and the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (dealing with proscribed terrorist groups).  Recent events have kept him very busy in that role.  Departure from the Crown Panels means that Mark tends now to act for public bodies, utilities and regulators outside central government.  

Human rights:

Mark’s grounding in human rights in domestic courts and Strasbourg came through ten years’ service on the Crown Panels: see “public & administrative” above.  Now it comes more through acting for a wider array of public bodies, regulators and private sector commercial clients both in the courts and, increasingly, in statutory tribunals: for example, the GMC, other healthcare regulators, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, utilities and trade associations.  Mark’s membership of the Attorney General’s panel of “Leading Special Advocates” involves human rights points in the terrorism and immigration fields: see “public & administrative” above. 

Disciplinary and regulatory:

Mark has a very well-established and growing practice, both as an advocate and an adviser, in professional disciplinary and regulatory proceedings.  Extensive work for the GMC lies at the core.  It has instructed him regularly and frequently for many years, as a junior and in silk, both through Field Fisher Waterhouse and directly.  Other healthcare clients include the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Social Care Council and the Federation of Opthalmic and Dispensing Opticians.  Mark is not generally involved in the routine prosecution work.  Instead, he appears in statutory tribunals, the Administrative Court (judicial review and statutory appeal) and the appellate courts in cases which raise points of administrative/public and human rights law with implications beyond a single case: for example, issues of natural justice, procedural propriety and article 6 of the ECHR.  He also appears for healthcare regulators faced with appeals in the High Court brought by the so-called super regulator (the CHRE, formerly the CRHP) against disciplinary decisions said to be “unduly lenient”.  He has recently appeared successfully for a major pharmaceutical company before the NICE appeal panel, challenging the NICE assessment of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a new medical device for NHS use.  Mark also regularly advises a range of public authorities and professional, teaching and regulatory organisations on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 (especially article 6 of the ECHR) to their procedures both as regards general restructuring and as regards specific issues and cases.  This has recently included advising/appearing for the Metropolitan Police Authority on disclosure of the IPCC’s two reports on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station and on the decision whether to bring disciplinary proceedings against senior officers.  Other recent regulatory work has involved the Construction Industry Training Board and the imposition of a levy on the construction industry, a jockey challenging a decision of the Jockey Club, a solicitor challenging various decisions of the Law Society, a barrister challenging a decision of the Bar Council, a broadcaster challenging a decision of Ofcom and Network Rail appealing to the Information Tribunal against a decision of the Information Commissioner on the meaning of a “public authority” under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.  In the summer of 2007 Mark also sat as an independent adjudicator (visitor) for Exeter University mediating and deciding a complaint brought by the Christian Union involving student discipline and the right to freedom of religion. 

Immigration:

Mark’s considerable experience and expertise in immigration law are rooted in ten years’ service on the Crown Panels (see “public & administrative” above) and in his co-authorship of Halsbury’s Laws of England: Immigration and Nationality, vol 4(2) re-issue, Butterworths (1992).  Crown Panel membership had to be relinquished on taking silk but, in Mark’s case, it has been replaced by appointment (renewed in March 2004 for a further five years) to the Attorney General’s panel of “Leading Special Advocates” cleared by the Security Services to act for alleged terrorists in relation to classified material before the High Court (dealing with control orders curtailing liberty), the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (dealing with national security immigration cases) and the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (dealing with proscribed terrorist groups).  Recent events and the frequent changes to terrorist legislation have kept him very busy in that role and most of his immigration work in the last 12 months has been as a Special Advocate.  Mark also sits as one of two Special Advocate representatives on the Treasury Solicitor’s panel selecting new Special Advocates for appointment by the Attorney General.  Currently, he is appointed by the Attorney General (at the request of the open lawyers) to act as a “Leading Special Advocate” in three national security deportation appeals of alleged Algerian and Libyan terrorists and four control order cases in the High Court under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.  Issues include the admissibility/treatment of evidence obtained by torture, the reliability of assurances of safety on return given by a foreign government, the disclosure of classified documents and bail/”house arrest”.  Substantive appeals are listed to begin in November 2007. 

Environment:

Mark’s experience and expertise in environmental and european law are rooted in ten years’ service on the Crown Panels: see “public & administrative” above.  It prompted involvement in numerous leading and high profile cases, including test cases on the legality of the fluoridation of drinking water by water companies and on the relaxation of night-flying restrictions at London’s airports.  Since taking silk in 2002 and, consequently, leaving the Crown Panels, Mark has been instructed regularly in environmental cases in, for example, the following fields: transport, health and safety, nature conservation, advertising standards, environmental information, waste disposal, railways, the construction industry and tobacco regulation. 

Network Rail v Information Commissioner EA/2006/0061 & EA/2006/0062 (17 July 2007)
Successfully advised and appeared for Network Rail in its two joined appeals before the Information Tribunal under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 raising, primarily, the issue of whether Network Rail (as the monopoly owner and operator of the country’s railway infrastructure) is a “public authority” required to disclose environmental information to the public on request.

Martin v Exeter University Students’ Guild and Exeter University (12 July 2007)
Independent adjudication (as visitor) for Exeter University mediating and deciding a challenge by the Christian Union to (1) its suspension from the Students’ Union for refusing to allow non-Christian members to become members or leaders and (2) the requirement for it to be renamed the Evangelical Christian Union.  A judicial review claim by the Christian Union under the Human Rights Act 1998 (articles 9, 10 & 11 of the ECHR) was stayed pending the adjudication but has now been revived.
Adjudication published on www.exeter.ac.uk.

R (Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority & Passenger Transport Executive) v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] EWHC 226 (Admin)
Appeared for the Claimants in the Administrative Court in an urgent judicial review challenge to the Defendant’s decision to withdraw £170m in grant funding promised in 2002 for the construction of a new tram system on Merseyside.  Grounds based on breach of legitimate expectation and unreasonableness. 

Henshall v GMC [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. Med. 103 and Times 9 January 2006 (Pitchford J and Court of Appeal).
Judicial review concerning the extent to which natural justice and article 6 ECHR required the disclosure to a complainant of representations made by a doctor in response to a complaint.

R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC [2003] 2 WLR 1403 (HL)
Compatibility with article 10 of the ECHR of the content restrictions imposed by the BBC on the Party Election Broadcast of the ProLife Alliance (an anti-abortion party) during the 2001 General Election.

R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority & Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 725 (HL). [2004] UKHL 6
Appeared for the Home Secretary in the House of Lords appeal dealing with whether, under articles 2 & 3 ECHR, those making complaints against police officers are entitled to disclosure of eye-witness and experts witness statements produced during and internal investigation before any allied criminal trial or disciplinary proceedings (due to the risk of contamination of evidence).

Sepet and Bulbul v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 856 and [2003] Imm AR 428 (HL)
Test case on (1) whether, and in what circumstances, various types of conscientious objectors can be refugees; and (2) whether asylum seekers must prove that their putative persecutors are motivated by a Convention reason.

Beckles v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 13 (ECtHR)
The right of a jury to draw inferences from a defendant’s silence during police questioning and trial and the application of the “proviso” by the Court of Appeal to defects in a criminal trial (the distinction between the unfairness of a criminal trial and the unsafety of a criminal conviction) under article 6 of the ECHR.

R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] 3 WLR 1800 and [2003] 1 Cr App Rep 523 (HL)
The compatibility with article 6 of the ECHR of the Home Secretary, rather than the judiciary, setting tariffs for adult murderers given a mandatory life sentence: declaration of incompatibility made by the House of Lords.
See the linked case of Stafford v United Kingdom, and the Thompson and Venables / Bulger litigation, below.

R v Pyrah  / R v Lichniak [2002] 3 WLR 1834 (HL)
The compatibility of the adult mandatory life sentence for murder with articles 3 and 5 of the ECHR.

Stafford v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 32 (ECtHR, Grand Chamber)
The compatibility with article 6 of the ECHR of the Home Secretary, rather than the judiciary, setting tariffs for adult murderers given a mandatory life sentence.
See the linked case of R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, above.

International Transport Roth GmbH v Home Office [2002] 3 WLR 344 (CA) (leave to appeal to the HL granted to both sides but not pursued by either)
Test case on the compatibility with EU law on free movement and with article 6 of the ECHR of the penalty regime introduced by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (fines for lorry drivers and hauliers who transport clandestine entrants to the UK).
Declaration of incompatibility granted under the Human Rights Act 1998, but no inconsistency with EU law found.

Gupta v GMC [2002] 1 WLR 1691 (PC)
The existence and the extent of a duty on the Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC to give reasons for its findings of fact. 
See the linked cases of Stefan v GMC and Gangar v GMC, below.

Gupta v GMC [2001] Lloyd’s Medical Reports 539 and TLR 16 October 2001 (DC)
Duty on the GMC to give notice of possible interim suspension of a doctor, so as to allow a fair opportunity for full representations, and the reasons for the imposition of any suspension.

Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 399 (ECtHR)
(1) Application of article 8 to UK planning controls relating to gypsies positioning caravans on land they own in the green belt.
(2) Extent to which ECtHR can depart from its own previous decisions.
See the linked case of Buckley v United Kingdom, below.

C.G. v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 31 (ECtHR)
(1) The extent to which a trial judge can interrupt evidence from witnesses and submissions from counsel before the right to a fair hearing under article 6 of the ECHR is infringed.
(2) The application by the Court of Appeal of the “proviso” to defects in a criminal trial (the distinction between the unfairness of a criminal trial and the unsafety of a criminal conviction).

Madan v GMC [2001] Lloyd’s Medical Reports 539 (DC)
No power for the court to quash the interim suspension of a doctor, only to list the matters to be considered at the next review of the suspension.

R (Nicolaides) v The GMC [2001] Lloyd’s Medical Reports 525 (QBD)
(1) No bias at common law and no breach of article 6 of the ECHR on the part of the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee when adjudicating on a complaint that the doctor had lied to another panel of the same committee.
(2) Article 6 of the ECHR is not engaged by a mere warning.

R (Holmes) v GMC TLR 24 January 2001, 63 BMLR 131, [2000] All ER (D) 2350 (QBD), [2002] All ER (D) 524 (CA) [bias] and [2002] All ER (D) 412 (CA) [merits]
(1) The test to be applied to the cogency of complaints by GMC committees when considering charges of serious professional misconduct.
(2)  The test of bias in the Court of Appeal when the judge who refused permission to appeal on the papers also hears the substantive appeal. 

Condron v United Kingdom (2000) 8 BHRC 290 and (2001) 31 EHRR 1 (ECtHR)
The right of a jury to draw inferences from a defendant's silence during police questioning and the right of the Court of Appeal to apply the "proviso" to defects in a criminal trial under article 6 of the ECHR (the distinction between the unfairness of a criminal trial and the unsafety of a criminal conviction)

Thompson and Venables v Newsgroup Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 WLR 1038 (Fam Div, Butler-Sloss P.)
Restraint, under the ECHR and the law of confidence, on the publication of information about the new identities and whereabouts of the murderers of James Bulger.
Also appeared for the Home Secretary in allied (private) proceedings before the Parole Board deliberating on release in 2001. 
See the linked case of R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, above.

R (Bulger) v Lord Chief Justice and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 3 All ER 449 (DC)
Judicial review challenge to the tariff set by the Lord Chief Justice for the murderers of James Bulger: the relevant considerations to be taken into account and the standing of the victim’s father to bring the challenge.
See the linked case of R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, above.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Thompson and Venables [1998] AC 407 (HL); and T and V v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 121 (ECtHR)
Judicial review of the tariffs of, and trial procedures in relation to, the two boys who murdered James Bulger. Followed by a Strasbourg challenge under articles 3, 5 and 6 of the ECHR to the fairness of the domestic trial process and the tariffs set by the Home Secretary.
See the linked case of R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, above.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Myra Hindley [1998] QB 751 (DC), [2000] 1 QB 152 (CA) and [2001] 1 AC 410 (HL)
Judicial review of the whole life tariff of one of the “Moors Murderers”: whether a tariff can be for life and whether a tariff can be changed if neither finally set nor communicated.

R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Kingsley (1996) (QBD and CA); and
Kingsley v United Kingdom TLR 9 January 2001 and [2002] EHRR 10 (ECmHR, ECtHR and Grand Chamber of the ECtHR)
(1)  Judicial review of the Gaming Board’s refusal to renew the gaming licence of London Clubs International.  Bias and the doctrine of necessity.  Challenge under article 6 of the ECHR, domestically and in Strasbourg.
(2)  Further Strasbourg proceedings concerning the extent of the right of ECHR applicants to monetary damages from states for violations of their human rights under the “just satisfaction” guarantee in article 41 of the ECHR: quantum of damages.

R v Home Secretary, ex parte Salas [2001] Imm AR 105 (QBD)
Test case on the “safety” of the USA as a third country for asylum seekers. 

R v GMC, ex parte Richards [2001] Lloyd’s LR (Medical) 47 (QBD)
Proper approach to the preliminary filtering of complaints against doctors.

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited v Construction Industry Training Board TLR 10 October 2000 (QBD)
Whether the manufacturers of fitted kitchens are part of the construction industry for the purposes of the Construction Industry Training Board raising a training levy.

R v GMC, ex parte Toth [2000] 1 WLR 2209 (QBD)
Proper approach to the filtering of complaints against doctors to the GMC and the disclosure of a doctor's defence to the complainant.

B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] Imm AR 478, [2000] INLR 361 and [2000] EuLR 687 (CA)Deportation of Italian sex offender with long residence in the UK – the public policy exception to the free movement of persons under EU Directive 64/221 and proportionality under article 8 of the ECHR.

R v Director General of Electricity Supply, ex parte London Electricity plc TLR 13 June 2000 (QBD)
Proper approach to charging for multiple applications, linked to the same housing development, for connection to an electricity supply: aggregate or segregate.

Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commission [2000] 1 AC 360 (HL)
The extent of the liability of the police in tort towards a person who commits suicide in custody. 

Jain v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] Imm AR 76 and [2000] INLR 71 (CA)
Whether, and in what circumstances, refugee protection extends to homosexuals who might be persecuted for the sexual orientation.

R v DPP, ex parte Duckenfield [2000] 1 WLR 55 (DC)
Judicial review of the decision of the South Yorkshire Police Authority not to fund the defence costs of two police officers faced with private prosecutions in the wake of the Hillsborough football stadium disaster: advisory declarations.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mbanja [1999] Imm AR 63 (QBD) and 508 (CA) and [1999] INLR 390 (CA)
Test case about the “safety” of Belgium as a third country for returned asylum seekers.

R v Northumbrian Water Limited, ex parte Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority [1999] JPL 704 and [1999] Env LR 715 (QBD)
The existence/extent of a water company’s duty to add fluoride to drinking water under the Water Industry Act 1991.

A v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 611 (ECtHR)
Compatibility with articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR of the criminal acquittal of a parent for disciplining a child, relying on the defence of "reasonable chastisement".

Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] 1 AC 293 (HL)
Meaning of “refugee” for 1951 Geneva Convention:

• whether historic fear of persecution is enough; and
• who is a “refugee” in a civil war.

Stefan v GMC [1999] 1 WLR 1293 and 49 BMLR 161 (PC)
Whether the GMC’s Health Committee is required to give reasons for its decisions.

R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte W [1999] 2 FLR 604, [1999] Fam Law 526 and [1999] 3 FCR 693 (QBD)
Judicial review of a child support decision: whether a finding or adjudication of paternity is necessarily implicit in a parental responsibility order.

Secretary of State for Social Security v Harmon, Carter and Cocks [1999] 1 WLR 163  (CA)
The scope of powers of child support officers and the extent of the right of appeal against decisions of the Secretary of State in child support cases.

R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte West [1999] 1 FLR 1233, [1999] Fam Law 297 and [1999] 3 FCR 574 (CA)
The correct method for assessing earnings in child support cases.

R v The Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC, ex parte Salvi (1998) 45 BMLR 167 (QBD)
The GMC’s duty to give reasons.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539 (HL)
Judicial review of an increase in an adult murderer's tariff.

R v Teeside Development Corp, ex parte William Morrison Supermarkets Plc and another [1998] JPL 23 (QBD)Judicial review of a planning decision by a Development Corporation concerning an out-of-town hypermarket.

R v IAT, ex parte Shah and Islam [1998] 1 WLR 74 (CA)
The scope of the right of women mistreated by their husbands to claim asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention as “members of a particular social group”.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Rahman [1998] QB 136 (CA)
Whether the hearsay rule applies to illegal entry decisions by the Home Secretary.

GMC v BBC [1998] 1 WLR 1573 (CA)
Whether the GMC’s Professional Conduct Committee is a “court” and, therefore, protected by the law of contempt.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Gangadeen and Khan [1998] 1 FLR 762, [1998] Fam Law 248 and [1998] Imm AR 106 (CA)
The role and weight of the right to family life under article 8 of the ECHR in deportation decisions.

R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Robinson [1998] QB 929 (CA)
The availability on appeal of grounds not taken below.
The scope of the “internal flight alternative” for refugees.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 763 (CA)
Judicial review of the Home Secretary’s refusal to naturalise the Al-Fayed brothers as British citizens or to give reasons.

R v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex parte Sherwin (1998) 32 BMLR 1 (QBD)
The extent/validity of powers delegated by the Secretary of State to the Benefits Agency (as a Next Steps Agency).

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 39 (ECtHR)
Compatibility of UK convictions for consensual sado-masochistic sexual activity with article 8 of the ECHR.

R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte Barclay [1997] EMLR 62 (QBD)
Judicial review of BCC’s refusal to prevent television broadcasters allegedly invading privacy in the making of a programme – whether power of prior restraint.

R v Independent Television Commission, ex parte The Referendum Party [1997] EMLR 605 (QBD) 
Judicial review of the air time allocated for a party election broadcast.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Canbolat [1997] 1 WLR 1569 and [1997] Imm AR 442 (CA)Whether French refugee procedures are “safe” for asylum-seekers returned to France from UK.

Attorney General v Morgan and News of the World The Independent 17 July 1997 (DC)
Newspaper contempt – article identified accused as offenders before trial.

Buckley v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 101 (ECtHR)
Application of article 8 to UK planning controls relating to gypsies positioning caravans on land they own in the green belt.
See the linked case of Chapman v United Kingdom, above.

Hussain and Singh v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 1 (ECtHR)
Child murderers sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Whether discretionary or mandatory life sentence procedures applied for determining release date.

R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Stage Coach Holdings TLR 23 July 1996 (QBD)
Judicial review of MMC report into a bus merger.

Secretary of State for Social Security v Shotton [1996] 2 FLR 241 and [1996] 3 FCR 346 (DC)
Case stated regarding the powers of Magistrates’ Courts in child support cases.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Propend Finance Pty Ltd [1996] 2 Cr App R 26 (DC)
When the Home Secretary directs a police constable to apply for a warrant to obtain documents in the UK but required for criminal investigations abroad, whether the choice of method of seizure is to be decided by the Home Secretary or should be delegated to the police.

Re P and G [1996] 2 FLR 90 (DC)
Judicial review of the refusal of Registrar General of Births Marriages and Deaths to amend the birth certificates of transsexuals.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Savchenkov [1996] Imm AR 28 (CA)The scope of the right of a victim of the Russian mafia to claim asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention as a “member of a particular social group”.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Reverend Moon (1996) Admin LR 477 (QBD)
Judicial review of the Home Secretary’s refusal to grant a visa to the leader of the Unification Church on the grounds that his exclusion from the UK was conducive to the public good.

R v Governor of HM Prison Styal, ex parte Mooney [1995] Crim LR (S) 753 and [1996] 1 Cr App R(S) 74 (DC)
lculation of length of sentence where time had been spent in custody on remand before concurrent sentences were passed for different offences.

R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Biggin [1995] 1 FLR 851 and [1995] Fam Law 359 (QBD)
Child support and the paramountcy of the “welfare principle”.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Flynn TLR 20 July 1995 and 139 SJ LB 196
EU law and free movement of persons.
Judicial review challenge to the continued imposition of passport checks at EU internal borders after the advent of the single market in 1992: whether directly effective.

R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte London Borough of Hackney and Islington (Nos. 1-4) [1995] COD 80 (QBD and CA)
Judicial review of the closure of A&E unit at St. Bart’s Hospital: applications for discovery. 

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Barr (1995) 7 Admin LR 157 (QBD and CA)
Police disciplinary proceedings.  Appeal to the Home Secretary: his power to overturn findings of fact by persons appointed to advise him.

R v MAFF/HMIP, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 321 (CA)
Principles governing the grant/refusal of a stay pending the substantive hearing when Court grants leave to move for judicial review of a decision affecting third party rights/activities.

R v Secretary of State for Social Security,  ex parte B [1995]  2 FCR 595 (QBD)
Case stated.  The ambit of the “welfare” principle in s.2 of the Child Support Act 1991 and power of a Magistrates’ Court to overturn a deduction from earnings order.

R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Barratt TLR 2 May 1994 (QBD)
The Health Secretary’s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a decision of the Family Health Services Authority.

R v Insurance Ombudsman Bureau, ex parte Aegon Life Assurance Ltd [1994] CLC 88 (DC)
Whether the Insurance Ombudsman is susceptible to judicial review. 

Rees v Crane [1994] 2 AC 173 (PC)
A judge’s right to a fair hearing when threatened with dismissal.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ku, Kuet and Chung [1995] QB 364 (QBD and CA)
Whether an immigrant entering the UK with an unauthorised work permit, but unaware of the impropriety, is an illegal entrant.

R v Birmingham County Council, ex parte Mass Energy Ltd [1994] ELR 298 (CA)
Procedures governing competitive tendering for local authority waste disposal contracts.

R v Avon County Council, ex parte Adams Ltd [1994] Env LR 442 (QBD and CA)
Competitive tendering for local authority waste disposal contract under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond London Borough Council & Others (Nos. 1-4) [1994] 1 WLR 74 (QBD), (1994) TLR 29 December (QBD) and [1996] 1 WLR 1460 (CA)
Legality of changes to night-flying restrictions at London’s airports: four separate judicial review actions.  (Proceedings then continued in Strasbourg.)

R v MAFF and HMIP, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1994] 2 CMLR 548 and [1994] 4 All ER 329 (QBD)
Judicial review of the legality of commissioning the THORP nuclear reprocessing plant.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley [1994] QB 349 (DC)
Judicial review of the prerogative of mercy/posthumous royal pardon for Derek Bentley.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Gallagher [1994] 3 CMLR 295 (CA and ECJ)
EU law and free movement of persons.  Judicial review of a terrorist exclusion order made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act: reference to the ECJ. 

R v New Thames RHA, ex parte Rhys Daniels TLR 22 June 1993 (QBD)
Hospital closure and consultation: treatment of a child in need of bone marrow transplant.

R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Goldstein [1993] 2 CMLR 589 (QBD)
EU law and free movement of persons: mutual recognition of medical qualifications for specialists.

R v Legal Aid Assessment Officer, ex parte Crocker (1993) 243 NLJ 1259 (QBD)
Application for legal aid for two allied sets of proceedings: basis of the means test.

R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Law Society (Nos. 1 and 2) TLR 11 August 1993 (QBD)
Judicial review of the validity of new legal aid regulations. 

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ghebretatios TLR 19 July 1993 and [1993] Imm AR 585 (CA)
No inconsistency between article 8a of the EC Treaty, as inserted by the Single European Act, which ensured the free movement of persons throughout EU member states without internal frontiers and the immigration régime adopted by the Home Secretary to deal with asylum applications.

R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport [1993] 1 WLR 23 (HL)
Judicial review of a monopolies and mergers decision into a take-over in the bus industry: meaning of jurisdiction over “a substantial part of the UK”.

R v Lewes Crown Court, ex parte Sinclair TLR 23 July 1992 and [1992] Crim LR 886 (DC)
A defendant who sought to argue that a warrant of imprisonment had not been correctly drawn up so as to reflect the sentence passed was challenging a “matter relating to trial on indictment” over which the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, not the Divisional Court, had jurisdiction.

R v London Boroughs Transport Committee, ex parte Freight Transport Assoc Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 828 and [1991] RTR 337 (HL)
Judicial review, under domestic and EU law, of a decision by London local authorities to require passing lorries to fit air brake silencers.

Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1989] 1 MLJ (CA - Singapore); and
Teo Soh Lung v Minister of Home Affairs [1990] 2 MLJ 129 (CA - Singapore)
Constitutional law and habeas corpus: whether and how the preventive detention without trial of a political opponent and prisoner of conscience could be challenged under the Internal Security Act.

In re Lonrho plc [1990] 2 AC 154 (HL)
Contempt of the House of Lords by The Observer newspaper in the Lonrho/Al-Fayed proceedings.

Selected Unreported Cases:

(2005-2008)
Advising a British citizen living abroad on his response to allegations being investigated by the CPS that many years ago he tortured prisoners in a foreign state while working there as a high-ranking police and security officer. Apart from the issues of universal jurisdiction (torture can be tried in the UK even if the alleged acts were committed abroad), the case raises issues of extradition, inferences to be drawn from silence and the admissibility of evidence. The advice was vindicated since the CPS has recently decided not to bring charges, so the case will not come to court.

Jean Charles de Menezes/Stockwell I & II reports (2006-2007)
Advising the Metropolitan Police Authority (the professional disciplinary body for senior police officers) on various issues arising from the two reports written by the Independent Police Complaints Commission on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station with a  view to preventing any judicial review claim, in particular:

• the strengths and weaknesses of possible disciplinary charges against named officers; and
• the procedures that needed to be adopted when considering such charges; and
• the legality of disclosing the reports to interested parties.

No judicial review claim had yet been brought.

Various judicial review cases for the GMC including:

• R (Varma) v GMC 26 September 2006 & 16 April 2008 (Admin Court)
• R (Haward and Green) v GMC 3 October 2006 & 12 March 2007 (Admin Court)
• R (Jackson) v GMC 9 October 2007 (Admin Court)
• R (Davies) v GMC 17 October 2007 (Admin Court)

Microsulis v NICE (NICE appeal panel) 26 January 2004
Advised and appeared for a major pharmaceutical company before the NICE appeal panel, successfully challenging the assessment of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a new medical device for NHS use.  

Advising the Health and Safety Executive on various aspects of its environmental regulatory work:

• The terms and legality of licences and licence conditions for nuclear sites in the wake of the restructuring and partial decommissioning of the nuclear industry from 1 April 2005.
• The incidence of the burden and the standard of proof, under article 6 ECHR, in prosecutions for breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• The legality of decisions and procedures when considering for approval the rail safety case presented by London Underground prior to restructuring the Tube into semi-private ownership and operation (“PPP”), with a view to avoiding a judicial review challenge which had been threatened by Transport for London and the trade unions (RMT & ASLEF) but which did not materialise.
• The legality of decisions and procedures when considering for approval the safety case presented by Railtrack, using private maintenance contractors after the Potter’s Bar rail crash, with a view to avoiding a judicial review challenge which had been threatened by Transport for London and the trade unions (RMT & ASLEF) but which did not materialise.
• The legality of charges paid by certain engineers for registration with their professional trade association.

Latif and Francom v United Kingdom 29 January 2004 (ECtHR)
The right of a jury to draw inferences from a defendant’s silence during police questioning under article 6.
Delay in applying to Strasbourg: when an application is properly lodged.

Easterbrook v United Kingdom 12 June 2003 (ECtHR)
Delay in setting tariff for life sentence prisoner: whether breach of articles 5(4) and or 6(1).

X v GMC 5 June 2001 (QBD)
The validity of the interim suspension of a doctor’s registration.

M v United Kingdom 7 May 2001 (ECtHR)
The compatibility with article 3 of protocol 1 to the ECHR (free elections) of the restrictions on the voting rights of those residing in mental hospitals.

R v ASA, ex parte Smithkline Beecham 17 January 2001 (QBD)
Judicial review of ban on adverts for Ribena “Toothkind” by the Advertising Standards Authority: whether bias of an expert adviser can invalidate the decision itself.

R v Construction Industry Training Board, ex parte Buildstone Limited 30 November 2000 (QBD)
Judicial review challenge to the legality of the training levy imposed on the construction industry by the Construction Industry Training Board, charging higher rates in respect of the self-employed than the directly employed.

R v DETR, ex parte First Corporate Shipping 7 November 2000 and 2002 (QBD and ECJ)
Reference to the ECJ from the High Court concerning the relevance of economic and social considerations to the proposal to the EU Commission of "special areas of conservation" under the Habitats Directive.

London Borough of Islington v Camp 20 July 1999 (QBD)
The availability of an advisory declaration to decide whether a local councillor was disqualified from office (in a hung Council).

Ward v Chief Adjucation Officer 16 October 1998 (CA)
Methods of assessment of child support payments.

Re Trax FM Ltd 21 March 1996 (CA)
Judicial review of a licensing decision by the Radio Authority.

Attorney General v Menzies 20 January 1996 (QBD)
Declaration against a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

VZWPIAGENE v BVBA Peeters 19 October 1995 (ECJ)
UK intervention in a Belgian reference to the ECJ concerning the validity of national requirements for food labelling in a local/regional language.

Graham v Chief Adjudication Officer 15 April 1995 (CA and ECJ)
Reference by the Court of Appeal to the ECJ concerning social security payments and different retirement ages for men and women: sex discrimination.

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) Attorney General v Evans and others 12 July 1994 (QBD and CA)
Legality of industrial action by the Prison Officers Association (POA) in refusing to admit prisoners to jails: whether the POA is a trade union, entitled to engage in industrial action under the Prisons Act 1952 and the extent of the powers of a police constable.

R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte NHBC 11 February 1992 (CA)
Judicial review of an MMC report concerning national housebuilding warranties.

Selected Current Cases:

Jean Charles de Menezes/Stockwell Tube
Advising the Metropolitan Police Authority on disclosure of the IPCC’s two recent reports regarding the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station and on the disciplinary charges that should be brought against senior officers.

Acting as a Leading Special Advocate in various cases, especially: 

Secretary of State for the Home Department v KK
Appearing for an alleged terrorist challenging his “house arrest” on national security grounds under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005: four linked cases listed for full hearing over two weeks from 7 to 21 November 2007.  The cases have already reached the House of Lords on preliminary points of law: judgment pending.  Issues include the compatibility of control order conditions with articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998, the admissibility/treatment of evidence possibly obtained by torture, the disclosure of classified documents and the extent of the risk to national security.   

R (McNicholas) v (1) GMC (2) Dr Murphy (3) Dr Khaleeli
Appearing for the GMC in the Administrative Court in a pending judicial review challenge to decisions of its Preliminary Proceedings Committee raising an array of issues: in particular, what test applies to the initial filtering of complaints against doctors, what standard of proof applies at the final disciplinary hearing and the extent of the duty to give reasons.

Professional Appointments, Attainments and Memberships:

• Took silk in 2002.
• Member of the Attorney General's panel of junior and leading counsel appointed to act for the Government and as Special Advocate for alleged terrorists before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (dealing with national security immigration cases), the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (dealing with proscribed terrorist organisations) and the Administrative Court (dealing with control orders), from 1998 to date.
• Junior Counsel to the Crown, Common Law (the “A” Panel) from 1995 to 2002, when he took Silk.  (This involved appearing for and advising an array of central government departments and governmental bodies in numerous reported and unreported judicial review cases and statutory appeals, as well as for the United Kingdom in many ECHR cases in Strasbourg and domestically.)
• Member of the Attorney General’s supplementary panel of counsel to the Crown, Common Law (the “B” Panel) from 1992 to 1995, when he was promoted to the ‘A’ Panel.
• Administrative Law Bar Association (member and former committee member).
• Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (member).
• Justice (member).

Publications:

• Human Rights Law & Practice (contributor) Butterworths, 1999 and (supplement) 2000.
• Halsbury’s Laws of England: Immigration and Nationality, volume 4(2) reissue, (co-author) Butterworths, 1992.
• The Primary Purpose Rule: A Rule with No Purpose (co-author) Justice, 1993.
• Judicial Review/JR (member of Advisory Board) Hart, quarterly journal from 1996.

Interests and Activities:

• Golf (Honorary Secretary & Treasurer of the Bar Golfing Society from 1999 to 2003)
• Running
• Scuba diving
• The Athenaeum
• Italy