Category: News

The Defendant faced two counts of facilitating unlawful immigration, having applied for British passports on behalf of two babies, with a view to bringing them from Nigeria to the United Kingdom.  Notwithstanding that DNA and ultrasound evidence subsequently revealed that the Defendant was not the babies’ mother, as claimed, she maintained that she had conceived with the assistance of traditional herbal medicine, a factor which led the media to dub the case as the ‘miracle baby’ trial.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was convicted after a contested trial, Gwawr Thomas was able to secure a suspended sentence for her client.

To read press coverage of the case, see here.

Through Judicial Review proceedings, the Applicant (P) – represented by Jessica Russell-Mitra – successfully struck down the decision of the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police to include unproven allegations in his Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC).

During his previous employment as a care worker, P had been the subject of accusations of sexual assault and inappropriate behaviour.  The Court noted that the assault allegations were fully investigated, unsupported by other witnesses and eventually no prosecution arose as there was “no case for him to answer”.  The reference to the assault was removed but the Chief Constable refused to remove other complaints about P’s conversations with service users and staff about inappropriate matters.

P complained, and further argued that he had not been given a proper opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Agreeing that the inclusion of such information effectively amounted to a “killer blow” to P’s prospects of future employment in care work, the High Court was persuaded to examine the way in which the Chief Constable had considered the reliability of the information disclosable to future employers.

At paragraph 25, Foskett J commented:

…How reliable was the information that they were used and what opportunity did the Claimant have to rebut the allegations?  …The senior officer only included in the information matters that could be corroborated by others.  Whilst, as I have said previously, that was an entirely fair way of going about the decision-making process, that process did require also the need to bear in mind that all of the other residents were themselves known to the police and I have detected no critical analysis of the veracity of each of the others by the officer.

Having heard detailed submissions about the unreliability of the allegations and the fairness of the Chief Constable’s decision, Foskett J held, at paragraph 29:

Putting together all these various factors – and, of course, giving such weight as I can to the experience of the senior officer in issues such as these – I am of the view that the inclusion of these matters (which, without diminishing them, are hardly at the most serious end of the relevant spectrum), the basis for which is disputed and is arguably unreliable, when judged by reference to the “killer blow” effect that they must have on the Claimant’s future employment prospects, does represent a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

The High Court concluded that the ECRC should therefore exclude any reference to such matters.

Find the full judgment here.

Chambers has been pleased to support the Justice Alliance’s film, ‘Are You For Justice?’, which was launched this week.

The film features a number of individuals who could not have accessed justice but for legal aid, including Patrick Maguire, wrongly convicted of bombing two Guildford pubs in 1974; Lance Corporal Gyanendra Rai, a British Gurkha veteran denied the right to settle in the UK after thirteen years’ service in the British Army; and Vivian Meneses, whose cousin Jean Charles De Menezes was killed by the police at Stockwell tube station in 2005.

The film can be viewed here.

To learn more about the stories of those who feature in the film, and how legal aid helped them secure justice, see here.

A team of 1MCB barristers will be cycling from Temple to Cambridge on 21st June to raise funds for four legal charities with which Chambers has a close link.

Please do consider sponsoring them by making a donation to one or more of the following charities.
Colombian Caravana 

The Colombian Caravana UK Lawyers Group is a group of international lawyers that monitor human rights abuses faced by legal professionals in Colombia. The Caravana was invited by ACADEUM (Asociación colombiana de abogados defensores ‘Eduardo Umaña Mendoza’), an umbrella organisation for Colombian human rights lawyers, to send international delegations of lawyers in 2008, 2010 and 2012.  It will be sending a fourth delegation to Colombia in the week of 23rd August 2014: funds raised through the bike ride will be used to support this years’ delegation.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
Project 17

Project 17 works to end destitution among migrant children, because it believes that all children have the right to a home and enough to eat, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.  To achieve its vision, Project 17 provides advice, advocacy and support for individuals.  It works with families experiencing exceptional poverty to improve their access to local authority support, builds capacity in other organisations, and campaigns for the improved implementation of statutory support.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
Greenwich Housing Rights

Greenwich Housing Rights offers free, independent, specialist advice on all housing and related issues.  It focusses on resolving housing problems and campaigning on housing issues affecting the residents of Greenwich and the surrounding boroughs.  It also seeks to raise public awareness of housing issues and provides training to local organisations on housing and related areas of law and policy.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
The Centre for Capital Punishment Studies’ Uganda Capital Mitigation Project 

The Centre for Capital Punishment Studies (CCPS) undertakes numerous pioneering activities within the field of the death penalty and penal research, with the overall aim of informing and supporting governmental moves to replace capital punishment with more humane alternatives and to give support for families of homicide victims and the condemned.  Formed in 2011, the CCPS Uganda Capital Mitigation Project’s objectives are to build sustainable capacity through the training and sensitisation of lawyers, law students and judges so that capital defendants receive effective representation and a fair hearing, and to contribute to the overall development of the criminal justice system.  Its partners include Makerere University law school in Kampala, the Uganda Prison Service (with which it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding), the Uganda Law Society, UNAFRI and UNOHCHR, the Death Penalty Committee in the condemned section of Luzira prison, Justice Centres Uganda and the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development.

For details of how to donate to this charity, please email tanya.murshed@1mcb.com.

Our Head of Chambers, Lord Gifford QC, is representing a gay Jamaican, Maurice Tomlinson, in a challenge before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize, which contain express prohibitions on the entry of homosexuals into those countries.  The case was brought under the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) treaty which provides for freedom of movement for CARICOM nationals.  Mr. Tomlinson is seeking declarations and orders, including an order that the laws be amended.

Under the original jurisdiction of the CCJ a national of a member state is entitled to seek special leave to make a claim if his country refuses to make it on his behalf.  The Jamaican government refused to espouse Mr. Tomlinson’s claim.  On 8^th May 2014 the CCJ granted special leave, saying that it was arguable that the mere existence of laws such as these could constitute a violation of a person’s rights under the treaty.  The governments of the two countries had argued that the laws were not enforced in practice.  The case will now proceed to a full hearing.

The judgment is available on the CCJ website under citation [2014] CCJ 2(OJ): a summary can be read here.

In another high profile case, Lord Gifford QC is representing Nationwide News Network, a leading Jamaican radio station, in a suit brought by former Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson.  The station had broadcast a report about a chartered plane landing in Jamaica from Cuba with a diplomatic pouch containing a large amount of cash.  The story turned out to be untrue.  Lord Gifford QC is arguing that the radio station had reliable sources and acted responsibly, so that this is a classic example of the “Reynolds privilege” defence, which protects media houses which act in good faith in a matter of public interest.

In the Supreme Court of Jamaica on 9^th May 2014, Justice Paulette Williams heard closing arguments and reserved her judgment.

A team of 1MCB barristers is assisting six men and one woman in their appeals before the Uganda Court of Appeal.  Each was sentenced to death following their conviction for the robbery and murder of local politician Leonard Isingoma in 2005: the appellants are appealing both conviction and sentence.

The appeals against sentence share a common thread: international jurisprudence requires that, where domestic law permits capital punishment, it must be reserved for ‘the rarest of the rare’.

The appeals against conviction raise a number of distinct grounds. They include the ineffective assistance of counsel where one advocate represented all seven defendants notwithstanding that some of them relied on ‘cut throat’ defences, misdirection as to the burden and standard of proof applicable within a ‘voir dire’ to determine the admissibility of confession evidence, errors in relation to the cross-admissibility of co-defendants’ out of court statements, misdirection as to the meaning of ‘common intention’, and reliance on weak and unreliable circumstantial evidence.

The team is working with Justice Centres Uganda and the Centre for Capital Punishment Studies: it comprises Tanya Murshed, Gwawr Thomas, Alex Chakmakjian, Bernadette Smith and Ariane Adam.

In keeping with our founding commitment to fight fearlessly for access to justice for all members of the community, 1 Mitre Court Buildings is pleased to be supporting the production of a film to raise public awareness of the far-reaching impact of the cuts to public funding for judicial review.   Produced by the Justice Alliance, the film is due to be released in June.

A preview is available here.

To learn more about the Justice Alliance’s campaign to preserve legal aid, see here.

Neelim Sultan is pleased to accept an invitation to speak at the Sixth World Women Lawyers’ Conference, hosted by the Women Lawyers’ Interest Group of the International Bar Association.  The event, to be held in Paris on 8th and 9th May 2014, brings together leading practitioners to share experiences and to discuss how to inspire the next generation of women lawyers.

Neelim will lead a session on negotiation skills in a variety of contexts, including in court and in meetings with clients.

Further information about the conference can be found here.

Tanya Murshed organised and presented at a workshop on sentencing and mitigation in capital cases in Kampala, Uganda on 29th April 2014. The workshop was led by Declan O’Callaghan of Landmark Chambers. Tanya delivered a presentation on the pilot of a scheme of pre-sentence reports and mental health assessments that she introduced at the special re-sentencing session of 136 Kigula beneficiaries last year. The event was held in conjunction with the Uganda Law Society and was attended by lawyers, members of civil society and senior members of the judiciary, including the Head of the Supreme Court of Uganda.

Tanya is the current Uganda Project Director of the Centre for Capital Punishment Studies.

Emmanuel Kalejaiye, represented by John Benson QC and Charles Crinion, was found not guilty by a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court last week (16^th April) of murdering his mother in September of last year.

Mr Kalejaiye was found guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. The Court had earlier heard evidence that Mr Kalejaiye suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and severe depression.  He will be sentenced in June.

John Benson QC and Charles Crinion were instructed by Ann Blyth-Cook & Co., Southend.

The trial was reported widely in national and local newspapers, including the Daily Mail, BBC News and The Mirror.

The Appellant, SS, had originally been sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for possession of cannabis with intent to supply.  He was a low-level street dealer who was essentially seeking to fund his own habit by selling cannabis from a friend’s flat.  The Honorary Recorder of Luton declined to suspend the sentence despite significant mitigation: amongst other factors, the Appellant was aged 19, had no previous convictions, and at the time of the offence had had a chaotic lifestyle, but had since secured full-time employment working six days a week.

The Appellant particularly feared the loss of his employment as a result of an immediate custodial sentence.  On appeal, he was also concerned about the length of time for which he would need to disclose his criminal record and how this would affect his future prospects.

At an expedited hearing, the Court readily agreed that the sentence ought to have been suspended but was further persuaded that in failing to suspend at the outset, the Appellant had lost the opportunity to keep his liberty by complying with Probation.  Therefore, replacing the original sentence with a suspended term of custody was no longer a just outcome.  In the circumstances, it was deemed appropriate to recognise this by imposing a community order instead.  Under new legislation, his conviction will now be spent in a year.

The Appellant was represented by Alex Chakmakjian.