Iain Edwards is speaking as part of a discussion panel on the role of the defence before international criminal tribunals. This is being hosted by the International Bar Association and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon on 24th November 2016 at King’s College London. Iain will be speaking about day-to-day challenges for the defence before international tribunals.
Please click here for further details and here to register.
The event is free to attend.
We are delighted to congratulate David Stephenson on his listing in Chambers and Partners for his employment and discrimination work. David was recognised as “an expert in all manner of discrimination claims with impressive knowledge across the wider aspects of employment law. He is instructed by both employers and senior executives, representing his clients in both tribunal and appellate cases. He is excellent with clients and he goes above and beyond”.
Iain Edwards‘ international criminal work has been recognised by his listing in this year’s Chambers and Partners as one of a small handful of leading juniors in the area. His entry describes him as an “international criminal law specialist who is praised for his approach with clients and his strong advocacy. He has spent a considerable amount of time representing individuals accused of genocide and crimes against humanity before the ICTR, and continues to be instructed by Rwandans facing similar charges. He has also appeared before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague.”
Iain’s strengths have been identifed as ”ethical and very meticulous in his cross-examination,” and “he is an excellent barrister, who is very hard-working and shows great initiative”.
Ariane Adam is currently working with Reprieve to lead their work on the re-sentencing hearings in Malawi following the abolition of the mandatory death penalty, and to pursue strategic initiatives to abolish the death penalty or restrict its application in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Discrimination Law Association conference ‘Discrimination Law Today – Threats and Opportunities’ will take place at Baker & McKenzie on Monday 14th November 2016, from 9.30am to 5.30pm, followed by a networking reception.
The event opens with keynote speaker Clare Moody MEP discussing ‘Europe and Equality after the referendum: A view from the inside’.
It then covers all aspects of discrimination and the latest developments and challenges in each area. David Stephenson is speaking on ‘What is new in race discrimination?’
To book to attend the conference, please go to www.discriminationlaw.org.uk.
Our Head of Chambers, John Benson QC, and Jemma Levinson secured acquittals for a Defendant on a charge of murder and four charges of attempted murder following a marathon twelve week trial at the Central Criminal Court.
John Benson QC stated: “This was a very challenging case. The defence maintained that many of the important eye-witnesses on whom the Crown relied had colluded to incriminate the defendant. To advance this in cross-examination it was necessary to examine and analyse the phone records of these witnesses and the mass of disclosed bad character evidence. I was immensely fortunate to have in Jemma a junior of such calibre and ability to work with me on this case.”
T was accused of making four maliciously defamatory statements when she was recruited as an independent HR consultant to investigate allegations of misconduct by F, a partner in a Law Firm.
In a case in which High Court proceedings commenced in 2014, an application was made on behalf of T in the High Court for summary judgment. During a two day hearing it was submitted that the statements were true, honestly held opinion, made with F’s consent, protected by qualified privilege, and were not malicious. Because there were concurrent Employment Tribunal proceedings it was also argued that the defamation action was an abuse of process.
The application was successful and F was ordered to pay all of T’s costs.
T was represented by Michael Chambers.
Four 1MCB members have been recognised this year in The Legal 500 UK Bar Directory, published on 14th September 2016:
This recognition that 1MCB offers such exceptional performers is much appreciated. Across all teams we continue to see our members consistently delivering an excellent and valuable service.
The Legal 500 further commented that our “expertise spans a range of areas, including employment, crime and public law”, “there is usually availability at short notice”, and the barristers are “knowledgeable” and “accomplished” in their various areas of practice.
Chambers is also noted for its “flawless” clerking; run by senior civil clerk Mark Darvell and senior criminal clerk Adam Brosnan, “the team is always helpful” as well as “polite and courteous”.
Solicitors also praise 1MCB for sending out “very useful” newsletters and running “well-attended” training sessions.
In a significant judgment handed down in the case of Kakubi Paul and Muramuzi David v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2008) on 22 August 2016, Uganda’s Court of Appeal overturned the death sentences imposed on the Appellants and substituted sentences of 20 years’ imprisonment. The Appellants, two brothers, had been convicted of murder and were sentenced to death on 20 October 2008.
The Court of Appeal set out the test for the discretionary application of the death penalty stating “the death penalty should only be imposed in circumstances which establish the gravest of extreme culpability and where a Court determines that individual reform and rehabilitation consequent to a custodial sentence would be impossible. This assessment should only be made upon consideration of expert evidence”.
This appears to be the first time an appellate court in Uganda has set out the circumstances in which the death sentence can be imposed, since the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney General v Susan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 03 of 2006), which upheld the decision of the Constitutional Court that an automatic death sentence, without affording a defendant the chance to mitigate is unlawful.
The Appellants were represented by Alex Chakmakjian and Tanya Murshed pro bono at the Supreme Court in May 2015. The case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal as the Court had failed to consider the original appeal against sentence. At the hearing before the Court of Appeal, Alex and Tanya filed written submissions on sentence through Evolve: Foundation for International Legal Assistance referring to the appropriate test for the discretionary application of the death penalty according to international law.
The case has already been relied upon in the re-sentencing hearings of Susan Kigula beneficiaries in the High Court of Kampala on 25 and 26 August 2016.
The Appellant succeeded before the Court of Appeal in what can only be described is a very rare case, both procedurally and substantively.
Whilst serving a term of imprisonment he was notified by the Secretary of State that she would not be pursuing deportation against him, on the basis that he was a British citizen. In due course he was released on licence and resumed life with his wife and two children. However, 5 years after her original decision not to deport the Appellant, the Secretary of State did commence the procedure, stating that she did not accept that he was a British citizen, and subsequently made a deportation order.
The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which allowed his appeal, accepting that he had been naturalised. However, the Secretary of State then appealed to the Upper Tribunal, which overturned the First-tier Tribunal’s determination, and substituted its own determination dismissing the Appellant’s appeal, as it did not accept that he was a British citizen, or that deportation would breach his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.
The Appellant then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Bean LJ granted permission to appeal on paper against the Upper Tribunal’s consideration of the nationality issue, as well as permission to adduce fresh evidence in respect of it, but refused permission on the Article 8 grounds. But at a renewed oral permission hearing, Gloster LJ accepted that the Secretary of State’s prior decision not to deport was an unusual factor having an effect on the Article 8 balancing exercise, and so gave permission on the outstanding grounds as well.
The full appeal was heard by Jackson, Gloster and Floyd LJJ on 30 June 2016. Unusually, by this stage the Secretary of State had also adduced her own fresh evidence, including three witness statements and documentary evidence not before either the First-tier or Upper Tribunals.
However, having considered the arguments, the Court ultimately decided that the Upper Tribunal had been wrong to overturn the First-tier Tribunal’s determination in the first place. The First-tier Tribunal’s assessment had been careful and detailed and its findings and conclusion open to it on the evidence. What the Upper Tribunal had considered to be a material error of law was in truth no more than its own disagreement with one aspect of the factual assessment. The Upper Tribunal should not have interfered with the First-tier Tribunal’s determination or reheard the appeal, hence its own determination would be set aside, and the First-tier Tribunal’s determination restored.
The Court also refused the Secretary of State’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Upper Tribunal’s determination overturned by the Court of Appeal is here.
The Appellant was represented by Benjamin Hawkin.
Nick Bano recently interviewed Ricky Tomlinson for The Justice Gap.
The veteran actor, best known for his role in The Royle Family, is one of the surviving members of the Shrewsbury 24, a group prosecuted for offences relating to intimidation and damage to property whilst picketing during the first nationwide building workers’ strike. The prosecutions are thought by many to have been politically motivated.
Read the interview here.
To find out more about the Shrewsbury 24 Campaign, see here.
XH and AI had had their passports cancelled on the basis that they were likely to travel abroad and engage in terrorism related activities. The Court found that the use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passports was lawful and rejected the argument that the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 had displaced the prerogative: there were major differences between the two powers and it was not to be implied that parliament had intended to abrogate the prerogative power by enacting the statute.
The Court also held that the prerogative powers were sufficiently precise to be lawful.
The Court further accepted that the cancellations engaged EU law but held that the restriction on free movement was justified and in the interests of national security and that judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision was an adequate remedy and there was also no violation of the right to good administration. It reached similar conclusions on the ECHR arguments.
Finally, it was held that there was a theoretical risk only that information protected by legal professional privilege had been obtained and there was no violation of the right to a fair hearing.
However, the Court granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to whether the royal prerogative had been displaced and whether there had been a breach of EU law.
Barnabas Lams represented XH.
The full judgment is here.
