Category: News

Christa Fielden recently secured success in an ‘Operation Nexus’ deportation appeal in which her client was described as “one of the most fearsome criminals in London”.

The appellant, said to be “an enforcer”, had five convictions, and the police’s oral evidence and the CRIS reports relied upon covered seventeen other incidents, some involving fatal shootings, as well as police intelligence which could not be fully disclosed for operational reasons.  DVD footage allegedly showing the appellant to be a gang member was also shown in the course of the hearing.

Although dismissed under the Immigration Rules, the appeal was allowed under Article 8, in a determination that ran to 110 pages.  Although the Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal, the Upper Tribunal upheld the First Tier Tribunal’s determination following a contested error of law hearing.

1MCB is proud to announce that David Stephenson has been appointed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of Preferred Counsel.

Former Head of Chambers Tony Gifford QC has been appointed as leading counsel for the Office of the Public Defender at the West Kingston Inquiry, which is now sitting in Kingston, Jamaica.

The inquiry is examining the events of May 2010, when the Jamaican military and police carried out a massive operation in Tivoli Gardens in order to execute an arrest warrant for the extradition of a local “don” Christopher “Dudus” Coke.  Seventy-five civilians and one soldier were killed during the operation.  The Public Defender, Jamaica’s human rights ombudsman, received hundreds of complaints of unlawful killings, injuries, abuse and damage to property. Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding testified at the Inquiry, which is chaired by former Chief Justice of Barbados, Sir David Simmonds.

The 1MCB Immigration and Asylum Update (IAU) will provide regular short summaries about notable or informative immigration and asylum cases to assist practitioners in quickly assessing what newly reported cases are about.  The updates will not provide a lengthy analysis, but a practical summary to ensure ease of reference.

Updates will be provided by the Immigration Team at 1MCB and edited by Vyaj Lovejoy and Bernadette Smith.

To sign up to receive regular immigration and asylum case updates please email us at iau@1mcb.com.

Also please do follow us on twitter @ImmAsylumUpdate.

1MCB is delighted to announce the election of John Benson QC and Benjamin Hawkin as Head and Deputy Head of Chambers, respectively.

Chambers wishes to take this opportunity to thank outgoing Head and Deputy Head Lord Gifford QC and Jeffrey Yearwood for their leadership and unstinting hard work.  We are pleased that both will continue to practise from 1MCB.

John Benson QC said: “These are exciting times for 1MCB and to have been elected Head of Chambers is a great honour. Tony Gifford has set the bar very high and it will be a formidable challenge to follow in his illustrious footsteps. I look forward to working with Ben Hawkin and all members to build on the success and reputation of our set”.

Michael Chambers represented a 17 year old defendant who, along with his elder sister and another young woman, were convicted of the horrific revenge rape of a 15 year old girl.

The defendant’s sister taunted the victim that ‘snitches get stiches’ after the girl had told others that the defendant had been involved in an assault and that his co-defendants had themselves been raped.  The victim was confronted by the two co-defendants before being corralled into an alleyway, where she was then forced to perform oral sex on the defendant whilst others looked on.

The case, which took place at the Central Criminal Court, attracted coverage in The Guardian and The Daily Mail.

On 19th December 2014, a jury at the Old Bailey returned unanimous not guilty verdicts on counts of solicitation to murder and threats to kill in respect of a defendant represented by Jose Olivares-Chandler.  They did so within an hour, notwithstanding that the trial judge had allowed the jury to hear evidence of the defendant’s previous convictions for possession of a handgun, a firearm and Class A drugs with intent to supply, as well as a GBH allegation involving the same complainant and letters sent to the complainant by the defendant which included threats to kill and harm her.

Mr Justice King, sitting in The High Court in Manchester, today upheld submissions made on behalf of ten Claimants that the Merseyside Police Authority had acted unlawfully in seizing and immediately destroying ten dogs.  Permission had been granted by Mr Justice Stewart, following an oral renewal hearing.  Barrister Pamela Rose, instructed by James Parry of Parry Welch Lacey LLP and both Dangerous Dogs Act specialists, represented the ten Claimants, who were each granted a declaratory order in respect of their dogs.  Altogether, twenty two dogs had been seized and destroyed in this operation.

The Court confirmed that a contingent destruction order made pursuant to section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies only until such time as the dog is exempted, consistent with the wording of sections 4A and 4B(3) of the Act, which states that “the court shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from that prohibition within the requisite period, the dog shall be destroyed”.

Once the dog is exempted, that contingent element therefore ceases: it could not be read into the Act that if the dog subsequently ceases to be an exempted dog by virtue of a failure to comply with a condition of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991, the contingent destruction order continues to permit destruction of the dog.  Regard must be paid to the principle of due process.  There is nothing within the Act that permits such destruction; neither is there any provision in the Exemption Scheme which spells this out as a consequence of any failure to comply with a condition of the exemption.

In March 2014 the Merseyside Police seized 22 dogs and immediately destroyed these dogs without affording any opportunity for the Claimants to make representations, provide an explanation or to appear before a court.  All of these dogs had been exempted by the Magistrates Court, on the basis that the court had found that the dogs did not present a danger to public safety under section 4B(2) of the 1991 Act.  The police authority sought to justify the summary destruction of these dogs on the basis that the contingent order was a continuing order for life entitling them to proceed to summary destruction.

The case was reported by BBC News.

Chambers is pleased to announce that Jemma Levinson has again been recognised by Chambers & Partners as a notable practitioner in crime.

Chambers is proud to announce that David Stephenson has been recommended in Legal 500 2014 as a leading junior in the field of employment.

The directory recognised, in particular, David’s client care skills, described as “second to none”.

1MCB was founded in 1977, with the aim of providing quality representation to all sectors of the community.   We continue to be committed to being approachable and accessible to all, and to that end, strive to maintain and promote diversity within our membership.  To achieve that, we have in place robust Equality & Diversity policies and biennially survey our members and staff in order to identify any sectors of the community which are underrepresented within Chambers.

32 barristers and 8 staff members responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 63% amongst barristers and 89% amongst staff.

The responses collated were as follows:

Gender

Male – 44%

Female – 49%

Other – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 8%

Age

16-24 – 3%

25-34 – 25%

35-44 – 40%

45-54 – 10%

55-64 – 13%

65+ – 8%

Prefer Not To Say – 3%

Ethnicity

White British/English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Scottish – 40%

White Irish – 5%

Gypsy or Irish Traveller – 2%

Any Other White Background – 7%

Mixed White/Caribbean – 0%

Mixed White/African – 0%

Mixed White/Asian – 5%

Any Other Mixed Background – 7%

Arab – 0%

Any Other Ethnic Group – 2%

Black Caribbean – 7%

Black African – 2%

Any Other Black Background – 2%

Asian Indian – 7%

Asian Pakistani – 0%

Asian Bangladeshi – 4%

Chinese – 2%

Any Other Asian Background – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 11%

Disability

Do you consider yourself to have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010?

Yes – 3%

No – 85%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?

Yes, limited a lot – 0%

Yes, limited a little – 8%

No – 85%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Socio-Economic Background

If you went to University (to study a BA, BSc course or higher), were you part of the first generation of your family to do so?

Yes – 35%

No – 38%

Did Not Go To University – 15%

Prefer Not To Say – 10%

Did you mainly attend a state or fee paying school between the ages 11 – 18?

UK State School – 60%

UK Independent/Fee Paying School – 24%

Attended School Outside the UK – 10%

Home Schooled – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 7%

Caring Responsibilities

Are you a primary carer for a child or children under 18?

Yes – 23%

No – 65%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Do you look after, or give any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of either long-term physical or mental ill-health / disability or problems related to old age?

No – 63%

Yes (1-19 hours per week) – 20%

Yes (20-49 hours per week) – 3%

Yes (50+ hours per week) – 8%

Prefer Not To Say – 8%

Chambers also collates data in relation to religious belief and sexual orientation.  However, not all respondents consented to publication of such data.

John Benson QC and Ignatius Fessal‘s client was cleared of attempted murder following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, arising from a nightclub shooting between two rival gangs.  At least four firearms were discharged, with two members of the public and a Co-Defendant being hit in the cross-fire.

An interesting feature of the case was the Crown’s reliance on anonymous witnesses, which gave rise to unique challenges in confronting the evidence.  Extensive argument was also heard as to the admissibility of evidence of gang association.