Category: News

Jose Olivares-Chandler secured unanimous not guilty verdicts in respect of counts of possessing firearms with intent, following a trial in which the Defendant’s ex-partner and children gave evidence against him.  His case was that he was set up and an extensive list of previous convictions (including convictions involving his former partner and children, as well as a drugs importation) went before the jury.

The Crown alleged that the Defendant attended his ex-partner’s address uninvited with a firearm, having earlier that day received threats from a male friend of hers.  On barging his way into the premises, he discovered that his former partner was not there.  However, his sixteen year old son and fifteen year old daughter were present.  His son alleged that the Defendant had brandished a gun and told him that he wanted to wait for his ex-partner so that he could “deal with” the male friend.  The son interpreted this as the Defendant wanting to kill the friend.  The son then kept the Defendant occupied whilst he discreetly texted his mum, who in turn called police.

Jose was instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen.

Nick Bano acted for the tenant in Bali v Manaquel Company Limited, which was an appeal on a novel technical defence to a section 21 possession claim.

Where a landlord has taken a deposit they must protect it and give the tenant ‘prescribed information’, which includes a certificate that the landlord must sign.  In this case the landlord was a limited company and the appellant argued that the certificate did not comply with the requirements for a executing a document on behalf of a company under section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Section 44 provides that a company document is properly executed if it is signed by two authorised signatories, or the by the company director (who must have their signature witnessed).

In this case there was only one signature on the certificate.  HHJ Hand QC ruled that the certificate is a document to which section 44 applies, that it had not been properly executed, and that consequently the landlord had not properly given the tenant the ‘prescribed information’.  The section 21 notice was therefore invalid.

In his judgment HHJ Hand QC expressed doubt that many commercial landlords comply with section 44 of the Companies Act, and noted that his judgment confirmed a ‘trap for the unwary’.

Mr Bali is currently being filmed for a documentary about tenants standing up to possession claims.

Nick was instructed by Anthony Gold Solicitors.

Chambers congratulates Gwawr Thomas on her successful application for admission to the International Criminal Court’s List of Assistants to Counsel.

David Stephenson acted for the successful claimant, Hayley Burden, in her claim for indirect sex discrimination against Hampshire Constabulary, who had withdrawn her from the promotion process after her flexible working request had been refused.

Mrs Burden, the primary carer of two young children, was one of ten successful applicants promoted to the rank of sergeant.  She was posted to Aldershot police station, which was over an hour commute from her home.  Mrs Burden applied for flexible working because she was unable to arrange childcare at 05:30 to enable her to begin work at 07:00.  When her flexible working request was refused, Hampshire Constabulary told her that unless she accepted her posting, she would be considered as having withdrawn from the promotion process.

The Employment Tribunal found that Hampshire Constabulary indirectly discriminated against her by refusing her flexible working request and failing to post her to a Sergeant vacancy that accommodated her childcare needs. The ET found that she was unable to take up her posting because of her child care responsibilities. The ET ordered Hampshire Constabulary to pay £11,621 for injury to feelings, to further pay aggravated damages, and to reinstate her to the rank of sergeant.  Hampshire Constabulary also paid loss of salary and pension from the date her promotion should have taken effect, and £1200 in costs.

Read more:

BBC News

Daily Mail

Portsmouth News

Daily Echo

The handbook, edited and updated by Siobhán Lloyd and Marc Willers QC, is intended to be a practical tool for those providing legal assistance to NGOs working with the Roma and Traveller communities.  It aims to familiarise those who are newcomers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and experienced practitioners alike with the workings of the Court, with a focus on how the Convention can be used to protect and promote minority rights.

‘Ensuring Access to Rights for Roma and Travellers’ has been made available online by the Council of Europe, and can be accessed here.

Benjamin Hawkin represented the Appellant before the Court of Appeal in what is a rare case, both procedurally and substantively.

Whilst serving a term of imprisonment the Appellant 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. The Secretary of State 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.

However, 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.

Benjamin Hawkin and Alex Chakmakjian represented the Interested Party in this Cart-type judicial review hearing.

The Interested Party had previously had his deportation appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed by a panel comprising the President of the First-tier Tribunal and an Upper Tribunal Judge.

The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but this was refused by the First-tier Tribunal and then by the Upper Tribunal. The Secretary of State next applied for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal under CPR 54.7A, the provision which gives effect to R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, in which it was held that permission for judicial review of such a decision should only be granted if (i) the claim raises “an important point of principle or practice” or (ii) there is “some other compelling reason to hear it”.

Cobb J granted permission for judicial review on paper.  Under CPR 54.7A(9)(b) such a grant will normally result in a final order quashing the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of permission. However, in this case the Interested Party exercised his right under CPR 54.7A(9)(a) to request an oral hearing.

After hearing oral argument from Leading Counsel on behalf of the Secretary of State and Benjamin Hawkin on behalf of the Interested Party, Haddon-Cave J accepted the Interested Party’s submission that at a hearing under CPR 54.7A(9)(a) it remains for the Claimant (in this case the Secretary of State) to satisfy the Court that their grounds indeed meet the Cart test, rather than for the Interested Party to demonstrate that the grant on paper was wrong.

However, he went on to find the test satisfied because the Secretary of State’s grounds, relating to Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, Regulation 21(5)(c) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and Article 3 of the ECHR, showed an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success that the decision of the Upper Tribunal and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal being challenged were wrong in law, and that there was an important point of principle or practice or compelling reason to hear the case.

Haddon-Cave J therefore allowed the claim, quashed the Upper Tribunal’s decision, and under section 31(5)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Two 1MCB barristers are recognised as leaders in their fields in Chambers and Partners UK 2016 Guide, which was published online today.
Iain Edwards was ranked as a leading junior in international crime: “Handles ICC matters, and is noted for his involvement in the Lebanon and Rwanda tribunal proceedings. He has particular skill in advising on genocide and terrorism charges.”

Strengths: “He is a very good and very polished advocate.”
David Stephenson was ranked as a leading junior in employment: “Specialises in discrimination disputes of all flavours, and is very highly rated by his clients and peers for his stylish advocacy, clear thinking and extensive experience.”

Strengths: “A brilliant discrimination advocate.  His strength lies in being creative and resourceful with case law.”

David Stephenson successfully represented a social worker who faced misconduct charges before the Health Care Professions Council (HCPC).

The social worker faced misconduct charges which included allegations of dishonesty and patient neglect.  Following a four day hearing, the Panel was satisfied that the social worker had not acted dishonestly, but had made an inadvertent and unintentional mistake as a result of extreme stress and anxiety.  The Panel accepted counsel’s submissions that the acts giving rise to the proceedings were insufficient to constitute misconduct and was in any event satisfied that his practice was no longer impaired.

1MCB is pleased to support the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers’ International Conference 2015.  The theme of the conference, which will take place at London South Bank University on 28th and 29th November, is ‘Women Fighting Back: International and Legal Perspectives’.

For further information about this event, including details of how to book, please follow this link.

David Stephenson acted for the successful claimant, Bruce Shields, who was removed from firearms duties after failing to meet a new hearing test.

Mr Shields had many years of distinguished service as a police constable who was authorised to carry firearms (‘AFO’).  Throughout his AFO service, he suffered from high frequency hearing loss in his right ear, having been diagnosed as partially deaf in 1998 after an ear infection.  There was no evidence or indication that his hearing loss had ever caused an operational difficulty or issue.  His commitment and service record were excellent and he had won a commendation.  In 2013, the College of Policing introduced a training curriculum for firearms officers with prescribed standards for eyesight and for maximum hearing loss, and required annual testing.  Mr Shields underwent a hearing test in May 2014, when it was found that his high frequency hearing loss in his right ear exceeded the maximum permissible for an AFO.  He was immediately removed from firearms duties, and in October 2014, his licence to carry firearms was revoked by the Respondent.  Mr Shields brought a claim for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

The Employment Tribunal found that the Respondent discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments in failing to undertake a functional test of his hearing ability. It concluded that there was a functional hearing test available which was objective, repeatable and conducted under the controlled condition of an audio booth which included hearing commands against a chaotic noisy background.  The ET found that the Respondent made the mistake of seeking to achieve everything, rather than starting with what was reasonably possible, and found there was an inherent difficulty with the Respondent’s approach in relying on the predicted destination of a route which was not taken.

The case was covered by the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Eastbourne Herald.

In this important case concerning the scope of the interim duty to secure accommodation pending homelessness inquiries under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, the Administrative Court held that, although the interim duty continues to exist until the housing authority notifies the applicant of their substantive decision, the authority would have performed their duty if they had secured the offer of suitable accommodation intended to be available until such notification, subject to any material change of circumstances which meant that the offer was no longer suitable.  Where the applicant refuses the offer, the authority could not be required to take further steps to provide alternative accommodation, unless there was such a change of circumstances.

Ms Brooks was represented by Anna Watterson, instructed by Sally Goldman of Miramar Legal.

Read the judgment here.