Crime, Public Law, Immigration, Fraud, Asset Freeze, Company Directors, Insolvency, Prison Law, Regulatory
Immigration and Terrorism: In the past two years I have been instructed in nine control order cases (3 as led junior. As sole junior I have advised the Secretary of State on the sufficiency of evidence to impose a further 3 control orders and advising more generally in 3 other control orders) and seventeen other terrorism-related cases (13 as led junior, advising in 4).
Control Orders: Led junior in control order cases, acting for the Secretary of State who relies on such Orders to minimise the threat to national security posed by individuals against whom there is insufficient evidence to try on criminal charges. Control Orders are imposed following civil proceedings (relying on modified civil procedure rules, Part 76) applying increasingly quasi-criminal standards of procedure, flowing from the building domestic and European case law that relate to these Orders. The work is intensely challenging; it encompasses both open and closed hearings/material, Special Advocates and a range of complex issues.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC): In the past year I have been instructed in thirteen human rights cases (led junior in eight) relating to foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity that have resulted in exclusion, deportation or deprivation of citizenship proceedings. These cases are conducted at SIAC, a specialist appellate tribunal set up specifically to cater for these complex cases in which secret evidence is heard in closed hearings. Typically, complex legal arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedure as well as ECHR rights are heard. Expert evidence is commonly called to deal with issues relating to the interpretation of foreign law statutes and assessments on whether it is safe to return deportees to countries known to breach human rights. Other arguments have included statelessness, extradition, double jeopardy, and purported breaches of Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Guantánamo Bay Cases: In the past year I have been instructed in three such cases. I am currently instructed as led junior acting for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a Norwich Pharmacal application for the disclosure of material held by the British Government that could purportedly assist a Guantánamo detainee in proceedings relating to his detention by US authorities. These cases throw up international liaison issues as well as serious and complex matters of jurisdiction, international law, and PII and inevitably have the potential for critical, UK media attention.
Asset Freeze Cases: I have been instructed as led junior in two asset freeze judicial review cases. Here the appellant, who is designated a ‘listed person’ (suspected of being involved in terrorism related activity) by the United Nations Security Council’s Sanctions Committee, attracts financial restrictions imposed by various UN Security Council Resolutions, EU Directives and Statutory Instrument.
Judicial review/Immigration Appeals: I have appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State, instructed by Treasury Solicitors at an appellate level in respect of immigration appeals. This work has developed consequent upon my SIAC and asset freeze cases.
Criminal & Regulatory Work:
I prosecute and defend alone and as led junior in serious, complex cases over a wide spectrum including; murder, kidnap, serous fraud, rape, arson, robbery, drugs insolvency, Companies Act and regulatory offences. Recently I was led in a 6-week, multi-handed, multiple-complainant, paedophile ring case.
Complex fraud: Led junior in two SFO cases; one trading standards case involving false accounting on a vast scale by the then head of Sheffield City Council Trading Standards Unit acting together with three local businessmen which took over four years to conclude; the other case arose out of allegations of invoice discounting by three defendants who were said to have used numerous construction companies to defraud three major International banks.
Proceeds of crime: I am instructed in confiscation, receivership, forfeiture, cash seizure and enforcement proceedings; appearing in the High Court, Crown Court and Magistrates’ Court (in private matters). I have been instructed to draft relevant paperwork and to appear in applications to the High Court for Restraint Orders and Receivership Orders.
Courts-martial: International smuggling of weapons – led junior.
Regulatory law: Prosecute in various regulatory fields as sole junior, including Insolvency and Companies Act offences on behalf of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills as well as prosecuting for OfCom, DWP, RSPCA and on behalf of local authorities in a wide range of offences.
Reported Cases:
Terrorism
Guantánamo Bay
- Shaker Aamer v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 3316 (Admin). Norwich Pharmacal application seeking disclosure of documents held by the British Government to purportedly assist a Guantánamo Bay detainee in proceedings relating to his detention in the US .
Control Orders
- AY v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1860 (Admin). Appeal against the imposition of a Control Order on this appellant by executive decision of the Secretary of State dismissed on the basis that the Secretary of State’s decision had not been flawed.
- AM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2486 (Admin). Held: There was no public law duty on the Home Secretary to provide a reasonable opportunity to the subject of a non-derogating control order to demonstrate a reduction in the risk which he posed. The control order regime was not analogous to that in respect of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection because the latter was not subject to the statutory framework for controlled persons under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
- CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2087. Held: The Secretary of State for the Home Department had had reasonable grounds for making a person suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activities the subject of a non-derogating control order. Sufficient disclosure had been made to enable effective instructions to be given and each of the obligations imposed under the order was a necessary and proportionate measure for the protection of the public.
- BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (hearing listed in 2012)
Abu Hamza (Naturalisation)
- Abu Hamza v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/23/2003. Appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deprive Abu Hamza of British Citizenship. The Appellant raised, as a preliminary issue, that were he to be deprived of British Nationality, he would be rendered stateless. Appeal allowed.
Asset Freezing
- R (on the application of K) v. Her Majesty’s Treasury [2009] EWHC 1643 (Admin). Judicial review of the financial restrictions imposed on the wife of a person designated under the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee as a terrorist. The conditions imposed under the Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 were deemed not to breach Article 8 ECHR and Article 1, protocol 1 of the ECHR.
Exclusion
- IR v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/78/2008. SIAC case determining that the exclusion of the appellant from the UK for national security reasons was not in breach of Article 6 or Article 8 where the appellant had none of the closed case disclosed to him and his right to private life had not been breached.
- GT v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/68/2008. SIAC exclusion case (refusal of entry) concerning alleged breaches of Articles, 3,5,6,8 and 9 ECHR.
- KP v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/72/2009. Appeal against exclusion from the UK for national security reasons. SIAC’s jurisdiction to hear appeal against the Secretary of State’s cancellation of the appellant’s refugee status was challenged. SIAC held it was not able to hear such an appeal as there was no statutory basis for doing so and no grounds for importing the EU principle of equivalence into these proceedings.
- Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/10/2002. Historic exclusion order imposed for national security reasons. Appeal heard in 2011 against refusal of entry clearance. SIAC treated it’s earlier decisions with regard to the appellant as the starting point, not to be departed from without good reason.
Deportation
- QJ v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/84/2009. SIAC deportation of the appellant, a person convicted under s. 17 Terrorism Act 2006 to Algeria. This deportation with assurances (DWA) case involved jurisdictional argument relating to double jeopardy, safety on return and purported breaches of Articles 2,3,5,6,8,9,10 and 11 ECHR.
- T v. Secretary of State for the Home Department SC/31/2005. SIAC appeal against deportation. Appeal allowed on the basis that the appellant was no longer a threat to national security and because the Secretary of State had failed to consider the position of T’s children, in accordance with section 55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration.
Immigration Appeals
- SM(Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 371. Judicial review against the decision of the AIT dismissing an asylum seeker’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum and humanitarian protection. Appeal allowed on the basis that the Secretary of State failed to take into consideration post-traumatic stress disorder that may have affected the manner in which she gave evidence to the Tribunal.
- XY (Sri Lanka) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 770. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department successfully defending this appeal against refusal of asylum dismissing the Appellant’s claim that he would face persecution from the Tamil Tigers on his removal to Sri Lanka.
- R (on the application of Kokularaman) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3512 (Admin). Judicial review of the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision to refuse to grant British Citizenship on the basis of previous membership of the LTTE.
- R v. Wain (2006). Acting for the appellant convicted of sexual touching in an appeal against sentence; the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence from nine-months immediate custody to a community order.
Cases of Interest:
- R v. Liggins, Whitehead and Abbott (2010). Multi-handed SFO fraud, acting as led prosecution junior in a multi-handed, trading standards fraud.
- R v. Campbell (2010). Prosecutor for the RCPO. Importation of Class A drugs; complexities involved PII, bad character evidence of non-witness and previous acquittal evidence.
- R v. Ahmed, Choudhury and Aslam (2010). Led junior defending the first defendant in a 6-week, historic, paedophile ring case. Allegations of rape and sexual abuse from 5 female, family-member complainants. Evidential complexities included partial acceptance of the alleged offending.
- R v. Bullen (2010). Defended in a difficult, multi-handed affray case involving the cross-examination of a senior Operation Trident police officer.
- R v. Mercer and others (2009). Murder trial. Defence junior to Boy M running ‘cut-throat’ defence of duress of circumstance. Evidential complexities included admissibility of probe evidence; expert evidence; quasi-expert evidence (a police officer speaking to the gang culture in Croxteth); complex bad character arguments (that went to gang associations/membership); (two-and-a-half months)
- R v. Prudhoe and others (2008). Prosecution second junior in this multi-handed conspiracy to defraud over a five-year period in discount invoicing fraud (five weeks)
- R v. M. General Court-Martial (2007). Led junior defending M in a 2-month, multi-handed weapons-smuggling case from Iraq to Germany, dubbed the “Guns for drugs” case by The Sun. Complexities: 2-week abuse of process. Acquitted of all charges.
- R v. Mazreku and others (2007). Prosecution led junior in this 6-week multi-handed sex trafficking for prostitution case.
- R v. Bhambra (2007). False accounting. Prosecuting for the Royal Mail in the Crown Court successfully on a voire dire on admissibility of confessions led to guilty pleas being entered and an appeal made to the Court of Appeal in which I appeared; successfully resisting the appeal.
- R v. H and others (2006). Led defence junior for Hussein in a multi-handed ‘Mafia’ kidnap. Acquitted after half-time submissions.
Associated Work:
Assisted Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his review into the definition of terrorism. Recommended an amendment, now incorporated into section 75 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, broadening the definition to include terrorist acts perpetrated for the advancement of a ‘racial’ cause.
Attorney General’s Panel of Prosecution Advocates (Crime):
- Junior counsel, C List. Regularly instructed to Prosecute on behalf of the UK Borders Agency / HMRC / RCPO / BIS / DWP in the Crown Court in respect of Trafficking of drugs, fraud, and Insolvency and Companies Act offences or in the Court of Appeal / High Court on behalf of the Secretary of State in respect of terrorism-related litigation and Immigration Appeals and Judicial Reviews.
CPS Prosecutor, Grade 3:
- Regularly instructed to Prosecute in respect of allegations of fraud, violence, dishonesty and drugs.
Security Clearance:
- Developed vetting, allowing access to the most sensitive material held by government departments essential for terrorism-related work.
Advocacy Training:
- Lincoln’s Inn Tutor Trainer
Bursaries awarded by Lincoln’s Inn:
- Sir Thomas More (BVC), and Lord Haldane (CPE)
Interests:
- Sailing (cruising rather than racing), netball, running (reluctant annual entrant to the Great North Run) and hill walking.
