Alan is Junior Counsel to The Crown Panel of Counsel for Government work – A Panel (2011) (previously B panel 2007-2010 and C panel 2004-2007). He is Develop Vetted.

Background:

Alan practises in the areas of public law, human rights (domestic and international), immigration and asylum, police and prison law, civil liberties, employment and malfeasance claims (assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance).

Although specialising primarily in public law, employment law and police law, he accepts instructions in all of chambers’ main practice areas.

Police Law:

Alan acts on behalf of the police in a range of disciplinary matters and detention related claims.

Public Law

Alan acts principally for public authorities; with an emphasis on immigration and human rights. He is recommended as a leading junior in the fields of human rights and immigration law in the Legal 500 (since 2006), in Legal Experts (since 2007) and in Immigration law in Chambers and Partners since 2010.

Employment

Alan has extensive experience, both in the employment tribunal and EAT, acting primarily for the Respondent, in a wide variety of claims involving discrimination (all types), unlawful deduction of wages, unfair dismissal, equal pay, WTR, TUPE. He has also acted in a number of cases focusing on post termination restraints (both obtaining and resisting injunctions).

Noteworthy cases include acting on behalf of the Respondent in:

• DEFRA v Huish and Robertson [2005] IRLR 363;
• Chelsea F. C. in the case involving the dismissal of Mark Bosnich;
• Fulham F.C. in the case brought by Jean Tigana (employment tribunal/EAT).

Alan helped draft the employees’ handbook for Chelsea F.C.

He is also the co-author of Tolley’s Employment Tribunals Handbook – first published in October 2002. The 2nd edition (published by Tottels) came out in August 2005. The third edition is currently being drafted.

Personal Injury:

Alan has extensive experience advising, principally Government Departments, on a broad range of personal injury matters ranging from manual handling claims to claims involving injuries arising from the Iraq war, or from detention in Guantanamo.

Other areas of expertise include:

• Inquests.
• Customs and Excise and, in particular, VAT disputes and MTIC fraud;
• Challenges to:
  • decisions of the IPCC;
  • decisions of local authorities before care tribunals

Recent cases include:

Case Law:

FA (Iraq) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 22

Questions would be referred to the European Court of Justice about whether the European principle of equivalence required that there should be a statutory right of appeal against the refusal of an application for humanitarian protection.

SM (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 573

An judge had been entitled to conclude that an asylum seeker faced a risk of persecution from Hizb-I-Islami that would result in a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3 if returned to Afghanistan and it had not been open to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to reconsider his decision.

Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire [2011] EWCA Civ 3

A chief constable responding to a request for information to be included in an enhanced criminal record certificate under the Police Act 1997 s.115(7) did not owe a duty of care to the person applying for the certificate.

MD (china) and Ors v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1015 (Admin)

This was the lead case in relation to claims for compensation under the Human Rights Act for delay arising from maladministration. At first instance Mr Justice Treacy held that consideration of matters under the internal complaints procedure with, where appropriate, an acknowledgment of unacceptable delay coupled with an explanation and an apology and an offer of small compensation, was an adequate alternative remedy. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant’s appeal against this decision, emphasising the weighty burden on publicly funded representatives to take all reasonable steps to avoid litigation. In addition, and significantly, the Court of Appeal held that there was no practical difference between an unreserved apology for an admitted isolated case of careless maladministration and a judicial declaration of breach of human rights.

M (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2011] 1/4/2011

An immigration judge had been entitled to conclude that an asylum seeker faced a risk of persecution from Hizb-i-Islami that would result in a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.3 if returned to Afghanistan and it had not been open to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to reconsider his decision.

C v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT v O [2010]

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had correctly decided that time spent in prison did not count towards the period of five years' continuous residency required for the purpose of acquiring permanent residence in the United Kingdom under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 reg.15(1)(a). IMMIGRATION - EUROPEAN UNION CA (Civ Div) (Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Longmore LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ) 14/12/2010 References: LTL 14/12/2010 Document No.: Case Law - AC0127073.

SM, AM, RT, DM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2010]

The Court of Appeal held that in considering imputed political opinion the issue of whether political activity was of central or marginal importance to the lives of the asylum seekers was beside the point. The core of the protected right was the right not to be persecuted for holding political views which they did not have.. It was not a question of what a claimant was required to do; if the AIT found that he would be willing to lie about political beliefs, or about the absence of political beliefs, but that the reason for lying was to avoid persecution, that did not defeat the claim.

R (on the application of MH) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1112

The Court of Appeal held that a judge had not erred in deciding that the detention for 38 months of a Somali national pending his deportation was lawful. It was a very long period for such detention, but the judge had given it the scrutiny it required.

*FA (IRAQ) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 696

The Court of Appeal concluded that s.83 of Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (‘2002 Act’) was to be read as applying to include persons who had sought humanitarian protection under para.339C of the Immigration Rules and "subsidiary" protection under Directive 2004/83, and the determination of such decisions were appealable where no decision had been made to remove an individual from the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was head in March 2011 and the decision of the Supreme Court is awaited

SSHD v IA (TURKEY) (2010) [2010] EWCA Civ 625

The SSHD successfully challenged the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s (AIT) decision that the SSHD had acted unlawfully in refusing to grant an individual indefinite leave to remain in circumstances where, despite having committed a serious criminal offence, an earlier tribunal had concluded that his removal breached Article 3.

XL (CHINA) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 575

The Court Appeal concluded that an immigration judge (IJ) had properly considered the evidence before allowing an individual's asylum and human rights claims so that the AIT had erred in granting the SSHD a reconsideration of the IJ's decision.

VALENTIN BATISTA v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 896

This appeal involved detailed consideration of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, related European Directives and case law. In remitting the matter for further consideration the Court of Appeal confirmed that, in considering whether the deportation of an EU citizen after his conviction for burglary and grievous bodily harm was proportionate, the offender's prospects in the United Kingdom compared to his prospects on deportation could be a relevant consideration for the AIT.

R (on the application of YH) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 116

In rejecting YH’s appeal the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the approach to be taken when considering a fresh claim for asylum under the Immigration Rules r.353 and when deciding whether to certify a claim as clearly unfounded under s.94(2) of the 2002 Act.

R (on the application of S) v SSHD & (1) Amnesty International (2) UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (Interveners) [2010] EWHC 705 (Admin)

IA challenge to removal to Greece under the Dublin Regulation 343/2003. Cranston J held that it was not incompatible with an Afghan asylum seeker’s rights under Article 3 ECHR. Whilst Greek procedures for dealing with asylum claims, and conditions for asylum seekers in Greece were unsatisfactory, there was no evidence that they were materially different from the position considered in R (on the application of Nasseri) v SSHD UKHL 23, (2010) 1 AC 1 and KRS v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (32733/08) (2009) 48 EHRR SE8. Nor was there evidence that Greece was compulsorily returning Afghan asylum seekers to Afghanistan.

OO (Jordan) v. SSHD [2009] UKHL 10.

Acting for the Secretary of State in a successful appeal against the Court of Appeal decision as to the applicability of Articles 5 and 6 ECHR to foreign proceedings and the applicability of 8 ECHR in foreign contexts in light of the decision in EM (Lebanon).

Ruhul Anam v SSHD [2009] EWHC 2496

The Court concluded that whilst the Home Secretary had unlawfully failed to consider the implications of his policy that mentally ill persons were not to be detained pending deportation unless there were "very exceptional circumstances" which would justify that course of action, given the claimant's history of prolific offending and the risk of his absconding, his continued detention pending deportation was not unlawful and remained justified.

SSHD v. Osman Omar [2009] EWCA Civ 383

The Court of Appeal accepted that principles set out in BR (Iran) v SSHD (2007) 1 WLR 2278 governing applications by refugees for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, also applied to appeals by the SSHD. In this appeal, however, the absence of any or any adequate explanation from the SSHD for the delay meant that time would not be extended.

ZH (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 8

The Court of Appeal held that the public interest in an unlawful stay which had lasted 14 years or more was treated by the Immigration Rules r.276B as met by a grant of indefinite leave to remain provided that there were no countervailing factors which tilted the public interest balance the other way. The use of a false identity might be a relevant factor in gauging where the public interest lay, but nothing in the rule accorded it any given weight, much less made it decisive.

Representing the Security Services in the Inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed;

Representing the Secretary of State in:

• OO (Jordan) v. SSHD [2009] UKHL 10.
• R (ota Hussein) v SSHD [2009] EWHC 2506
• Ruhul Anam v SSHD [2009] EWHC 2496
• SSHD v. Osman Omar [2009] EWCA Civ 383
• AA(Iran v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 705
• SSHD v (1) AT and (2) AW [2009] EWHC 512
• BA (Kosovo) v SSHD [2009] EWCA 254
• ZH (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 8
• MM (Iran) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1264
• NB (Ghana) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 1201
• AE v SSHD [2008] EWHC 1743
• TG (Central African Republic) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 997

Older cases includes acting for the mothers in Re B (A CHILD) sub nom in Re Vaccination/MMR Litigation (2003) 2 FLR 1095; G v. SSHD Times December 15 2004 2004 (application of Dublin Regulations to unaccompanied minors), Bekteshi v. IAT [2004] EWHC 803 (fresh claim in light of suicide risk), Gashi (Agim) v. IAT [2004] EWHC 680 (rationality of IAT’s refusal fresh of leave to appeal), Hossein Ali (Jalal) v. SSHD [2005] EWHC 111 (fresh claim in light of suicide risk applicant), R (on the application of H) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 1702 (Admin) (unlawful detention), Hamidreza Djassebi v. SSHD [2005] EWHC 2298 (safe third country removal of suicide risk applicant), A v SSHD [2005] EWHC 3354 (application of Dublin Regulations to unaccompanied minors), Aksu v SSHD [2006]EWHC 1382 (Admin) (Turkish ECAA application).

Judicial reviews

R (Thein) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 557

The secretary of state had been entitled to reject the further submissions of a Burmese national who claimed that simply because he had attended demonstrations in the United Kingdom, he would be at risk of persecution were he to be returned to Burma.

SUMAIYA PATEL v LORD CHANCELLOR [2010] EWHC 2220

I acted as junior Counsel for the Lord Chancellor in an application for judicial review brought by the widow of a person suspected of being responsible for the bombings in London on July 7, 2005 against a decision refusing her exceptional funding for legal representation at the inquest into the deaths caused by the bombings. The Court concluded that the Claimant had failed to show that there was a significant wider public interest in her being represented.

Coker v. (1) IPCC (2) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CO/8015/2009, LTL/16/11/10

The Court held that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was entitled to revise its decisions as to what if any recommendations as to disciplinary action should be brought against a police officer and the fact that it made a final recommendation that was contrary to a view that it initially formed was neither ultra vires nor irrational.

Mohidin & Khan v. (1) IPCC (2) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘MET’) (3) PS Wilson and Ors.

The Claimants challenged the decision of the IPCC not to recommend the institution of disciplinary proceedings against police officers in respect of allegations of harassment, assault and discrimination arising from incident in respect of which the officers had been prosecuted and acquitted. I acted for the MET. Permission was refused. The Claimants are currently seeking permission to appeal.

Independent Schools Council v. Charity Commission

I acted as junior Counsel in a challenge brought to the guidance issued by the Charity Commission in 2010 and, in particular their decision to interpret ‘public benefit’ (in the context of the Charities Act 2006) to require schools to expand bursary provisions. The Claimant argued that the Charity Commission’s approach represents a serious encroachment on the independence of charitable schools. The challenge has been transferred to the Upper Tribunal.

Barry George v. Metropolitan Police Service

I acted as junior Counsel for the MPS in successfully resisting a challenge brought by the Claimant to the lawfulness of the decisions of the Panels, chaired by the MPS, to include him in the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) scheme. The Claimant was unsuccessful in his claim that his inclusion in MAPPA was (i) unlawful and/or (ii) unduly intrusive amounting to an infringement of his Article 8 rights, on the grounds that they are disproportionate to the aim pursued in imposing them.

Control orders

SSHD v (1) AT and (2) AW [2009] EWHC 512

I was led by Robin Tam QC. A report relied upon by the SSHD to make a non-derogating control order against a Libyan national was misleading, as the use of the present tense erroneously suggested that he had resumed terrorist-related activities following his release from prison. Accordingly, the SSHD's decision to make the order was flawed. There was nothing in the relevant report that suggested the individual in question had resumed terrorist activities.

Inquiries

Azelle Rodney Inquiry

I am acting as junior Counsel on behalf of the MET in the on-going Inquiry into the shooting of Azelle Rodney by the Met. This case has been referred to in detail in the advisory examples.

Employment

I have acted in a number of employment cases for the DWP, SOCA the Home Office and Foreign Office. In addition to standard unfair/constructive dismissal cases, and discrimination cases, I have acted in:

(i) A test case brought against SOCA by interpreters (who sought to argue that they were employed as opposed to self-employed). Losing this case gave rise to significant financial ramifications (there being hundreds of interpreters who, for example, would have become eligible for overtime, both in the past in the future etc). SOCA successfully defended this case. It is understood that SOCA’s success influenced the decision to drop similar claims that had been issued against Customs & Excise.

(ii) Pensions cases involving complex transfer provisions between the MET and SOCA; and

(iii) Cases involving SOCA under-cover officers with closed hearings involving information concerning highly sensitive undercover operations.

VAT Tribunals

I am instructed in a number of Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud appeals and have conducted more general fact specific VAT appeals.

Care Standards Tribunal

I have acted for the Respondent in statutory appeals brought under section 86 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (CAS) by persons who have been included on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list (PoVA) and/or the Protection of Children Act list (PoCA).

Commercial/Civil

Commercial disputes involving breach of directors fiduciary duties/trust, arbitrations (contractual disputes involving the outsourced provision of detention centres, removal of failed asylum seekers etc.), contractual disputes involving penalty clauses, enforceability of guarantees, restraints of trade, undue influence, and disputes involving sales of goods and services.

Lectures:

Alan has lectured on a range of matters, including Human Rights issues, Immigration law and Employment law.