Category: News

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.

Chambers congratulates Jessica Russell-Mitra on her appointment as Assistant Coroner for the county of Surrey.

Jessica will continue to practise from Chambers alongside performing her new judicial role.

The Legal 500 UK 2015 Guide was published online today.  The Guide noted that

“1MCB … is a respected common law set, with niche specialisms in areas such as animal welfare and prison law. It is recommended for its ‘flexibility’ and ‘multi-talented barristers’. The clerks are also singled out as ‘very helpful and professional’. Mark Darvell is the senior civil clerk, and Adam Brosnan is the senior criminal clerk.”

Benjamin Hawkin was ranked as a leading junior in immigration law for his “specialist knowledge of a range of areas including asylum, deportation and entry clearance”.

David Stephenson was ranked as a leading junior in employment law: “A formidable opponent, a polished and persuasive advocate, and a tough negotiator who goes the extra mile for his clients”.

In Doris Enemuwe v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin), the High Court found that the initial disciplinary panel had been subject to a serious procedural irregularity, in that the Conduct and Competence Committee had been unduly influenced by the findings of a previous local investigation by the Supervisor of Midwives.  Mr Justice Holman accordingly quashed the Committee’s finding that Ms Enemuwe’s fitness to practise was impaired, as well as the sanction of a twelve month caution order.

Ms Enemuwe was represented by Jacqueline Lule, instructed under the Direct Public Access Scheme.

John Benson QC, instructed by Hill Dickinson, successfully defended one of two former senior firefighters on charges of false imprisonment and indecent assault.  This was an unusual and challenging case requiring a familiarity with the organisation and culture of the Fire Service in the late 80s and early 90s.  Trials involving charges of false imprisonment are rarely before the Crown Court and the issues of consent and indecency in what was alleged to have gone further than rough and undisciplined horseplay made for an interesting legal and factual case.

The trial was widely reported by the media, including the BBC, The Telegraph and The Mirror.

Iain Edwards recently spoke at a conference in Dakar, Senegal organised by the West Africa Regional Office of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This capacity building initiative is being undertaken in advance of the trial of Hissein Habré, the former President of Chad, and others for crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture before the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal. Iain spoke about the role and challenges of the defence before international criminal tribunals.

Tanya Murshed and Alex Chakmakjian have recently returned from Uganda, where they have been representing prisoners in their appeals against conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court.

Working in partnership with the Uganda Law Society, Tanya and Alex were granted Special Practising Certificates by the Law Council of Uganda, which authorised them to appear before the Supreme Court. They represented two brothers who are challenging their convictions for murder and sentences of death.

As a result of their legal arguments, heard on 28th May 2015, the Supreme Court accepted that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly consider the appeal against sentence. The case was ordered to first go back to the Court of Appeal to be reconsidered before dealing with the appeal against conviction in the Supreme Court, expected to take place later this year.

Over the last two weeks, Tanya, Alex and Jacqueline Lule have been assisting and advising legal representatives based in Uganda on other appeals in the Supreme Court. They also worked on progressing the cases of prisoners still waiting to be re-sentenced after the Supreme Court struck down automatic death sentences as unconstitutional in 2009 (Kigula & 416 Ors v Attorney General of Uganda).