Joe was a finalist in the Legal Aid Newcomer category at the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year (LALY) 2016 awards

Before coming to the Bar Joe worked in the Registry of the ECHR, as a result of which he has an excellent understanding of the Court’s procedure.

Joe was instructed in one of the lead challenges to the Legal Aid Agency’s exceptional case funding regime (Gudanaviciene), which was successful both in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

PERSONAL PROFILE

Joe was called to the Bar in 2012, having worked in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights and as an immigration/asylum caseworker. He practices in housing, immigration and community care law and has a particular interest in work which approaches those fields from a public law angle. His higher profile recent work includes lead challenges to the Lord Chancellor’s exceptional case funding guidance (Gudanaviciene), the amended regime for compensation for miscarriages of justice (Nealon) and the Home Secretary’s “deport first, appeal later” power (Kiarie).

Joe was a finalist in the Legal Aid Newcomer category at the LALY 2016 awards.

LALY Finalist 2016

He completed pupillage at Garden Court North in October 2014 under the supervision of Ben McCormack.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Immigration

Joe’s practice covers First-tier and Upper Tribunal appeals, as well as judicial review both in the tribunal and High Court, across the full spectrum of immigration, asylum and nationality law. He has particular expertise in cases concerning the Home Secretary’s “deport first, appeal later” power, having represented the appellant in R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 1961 and a number of other claimants in related challenges, and in cases where asylum or human rights claims are certified as clearly unfounded.

Housing

Joe has experience of a broad range of housing and homelessness cases, including possession trials, homelessness appeals, claims for unlawful eviction, judicial review, committal and injunction applications, as well as the new closure orders regime under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. He has a particular interest in Gypsy/Traveller cases and has experience of Mobile Homes Act and trespasser possession claims across both England and Wales:

  • In R (VC) v North Somerset Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) CO/3801/2015, Joe (led by Marc Willers QC) successfully challenged the Council’s housing allocation scheme, on the basis that its “local connection” requirement indirectly discriminated against Gypsies and Travellers;
  • In R (O’Brien & Anr) v Bristol City Council (Secretary of State for Transport as Interested Party) [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin), Joe obtained an injunction on behalf of a family of Irish Travellers facing eviction from a site beneath the M5 motorway.

Joe has also been instructed in a number of gang injunction cases.

Public law, discrimination and welfare rights

Joe has a growing judicial review practice covering his core areas of practice as well as other fields of law. Some examples of his work in this area include:

  • R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anr (British Red Cross Society intervening) [2015] 1 WLR 2247: this was a successful challenge to the Lord Chancellor’s guidance dealing with exceptional case funding and to a decision to refuse funding to Ms Gudanaviciene for her appeal against deportation;
  • R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 355: a challenge to the amended section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which governs compensation for miscarriages of justice, on the basis that the amended form is incompatible with the presumption of innocence protected by Article 6(2) ECHR;
  • R (MS) v Independent Monitor of the Home Office [2016] 4 WLR 88: a successful challenge to the Monitor’s decision that information – arising from a series of aged allegations of indecency towards females – contained within an enhanced criminal records certificate was relevant, credible and ought to be disclosed.

Joe is regularly instructed in appeals before the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, often pro bono. His reported cases include:

  • Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v AN (PIP) [2015] UKUT 681 (AAC): an appeal concerning the correct interpretation of Activity 3 of the PIP Regulations;
  • Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v PG (JSA) [2015] UKUT 616 (AAC): an appeal in which the tribunal departed from an earlier decision to hold that an applicant could rely on the DWP website (for the purpose of establishing that he had been misled) when seeking to backdate a claim for benefit;
  • AB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2015] UKUT 89 (AAC): an appeal which concerned the treatment of “non-renewal” claims for benefit.

Before coming to the Bar, Joe worked in the Registry of the ECHR as a result of which he has an excellent understanding of the Court’s procedure. He has also spent time working within an international NGO – Minority Rights Group International – on its strategic litigation and shadow reporting projects covering Africa, South America and Europe.

REPORTED CASES

Supreme Court 

Court of Appeal

High Court

Upper Tribunal

  • Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v AN (PIP) [2015] UKUT 681 (AAC) (appeal concerning the correct interpretation of Activity 3 of the PIP Regulations)
  • Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v PG (JSA) [2015] UKUT 616 (AAC) (established on appeal, contrary to a different Upper Tribunal authority, that an applicant can rely on the DWP website when seeking to backdate a claim for benefit)
  • AB v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (DLA) [2015] UKUT 89 (AAC) (appeal concerning the treatment of non-renewal claims for benefit)

PUBLICATIONS & SEMINARS

  • Contributor, Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice (9th edn., Butterworths: London, 2015).
  • ‘When are the best interests and welfare of the child relevant and how can they be used in housing-related claims? Part 2: Application’ (2015) 18 Journal of Housing Law 10.
  • 'When are the best interests and welfare of the child relevant and how can they be used in housing-related claims? Part 1: Principles' (2014) 17(6) Journal of Housing Law 118.
  • 'What is the use of a human right to development? Legal pluralism, “participation” and a tentative rehabilitation’ (2014) 41(3) Journal of Law and Society 367.

MEMBERSHIPS & ASSOCIATIONS

CALL YEAR

2012

QUALIFICATIONS

LL.B. (Hons), First Class: University of Manchester
LL.M., Distinction: University College London
BPTC

Print

Profile