Avril is meticulous and analytical, and an articulate advocate. She also demonstrates great empathy and compassion with clients.
Avril has a busy public law practice with a particular expertise in mental capacity and community care and is recognised in the Legal 500 as a leading junior in Court of Protection. Avril is also instructed in homelessness judicial reviews, special educational needs law, and inquests.
Avril has gained extensive experience in the field of public law and human rights working in human rights NGOs and legal advice centres in Germany, Bolivia, the UK, and the Netherlands. Through this work, Avril developed skills for dealing with vulnerable clients, particularly in the fields of access to healthcare, anti-discrimination, and violence against women. Avril previously taught in the LL.M programme at the Walter Schücking Institute for Public International Law, Germany and worked at the African Court of Human and Peoples Rights and with European Lawyers for Lesvos.
Avril regularly gives training to other lawyers, professionals and students. Avril is contactable out of hours and is happy to assist charities and NGO’s on a pro-bono basis.
Avril is ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior for Court of Protection and Community Care by The Legal 500
Avril acts in health and welfare proceedings representing the Official Solicitor, local authorities, ICB’s and family members in section 21A challenges and section 16 welfare applications with a particular interest in hoarding cases and capacity disputes regarding capacity to engage in sexual relations.
Avril is also experienced in cases which involve both the Court of Protection and the Family Court such as the deprivation of liberty of children and Forced Marriage Protection Orders.
In respect of property and financial affairs proceedings, Avril is instructed in a variety of proceedings, including where there are concerns in relation to the execution and operation of Lasting Powers of Attorney, and the time-limited appointment of deputies. Avril is also instructed by family members in challenging applications to revoke their Lasting Powers of Attorney and in applications for statutory wills.
Avril has an advisory practice in mental capacity law, in particular applications for the recognition of foreign protective measures, the interface between mental capacity law and Special Educational Needs law
Avril regularly provides training to solicitors on topics such as: fluctuating capacity, unwise decision making, creative use of the Court of Protection, the interplay between mental capacity law and special educational needs (SEN) law, and the role of the inherent jurisdiction.
Avril frequently appears in the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) in appeals against Educational, Health and Care Plans for parents in section B, F and I appeals, extended appeals for health and social care provision, and appeals for non-issuing of an EHCP. Avril’s work in education law runs alongside a general public law practice, particularly in judicial review and she has an advisory practice in cases which straddle SEN law and mental capacity law.
Avril regularly advises and appears on behalf of claimants in judicial review actions concerning, the statutory duties of local authorities (and of the Home Office) regarding accommodation provision, its adequacy, and timeliness; services and support available to disabled and vulnerable persons; educational needs provision; needs assessment provision; and former looked-after children’s provision of accommodation, care, or support; as well as age assessment and the requirements of Merton/caselaw and relevant guidance.
Avril accepts instructions from bereaved families usually where mental health treatment and mental capacity are in issue.
Avril is a member of the Inquest Lawyers Group.
Avril is instructed in homelessness judicial reviews under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 including urgent out of hours applications for interim relief.
Re RB [HHJ Cronin]
Instructed by the Official Solicitor in a case concerning whether a young woman ought to be forcibly given medical treatment for severe rheumatoid arthritis under restraint. Successfully argued, on behalf of the Official Solicitor, that RB had capacity to refuse the treatment and that her decision was unwise rather than incapacitous.
Re AI [HHJ Rowland]
Represented P in parallel Forced Marriage Protection Order proceedings in the Family Court and Court of Protection where P had already fathered a child with his putative wife. At a contested final hearing, the court accepted counsel’s submissions that P had capacity to marry and retrospective capacity to marry at the time of the marriage.
Re CMJ [HHJ Brown]
Representing the applicant local authority in on-going proceedings concerning the discharge destination of a teenage girl currently under section 3 to the backdrop of a lack of clarity as to which ICB is jointly responsible for P’s section 117 aftercare.
Re AOB [HHJ Hilder]
Represented P’s mother DMM in a contentious and protracted section 16 case seeking a further trial home for P.
Re LM [MacDonald J.]
Represented the local authority in proceedings concerning P who has had multiple encounters with the criminal justice system, where parties were not in agreement as to how and by whom P’s further psychological input ought to be funded.
Re RP [Judd J.]
Represented the ICB in proceedings where 15-year-old RP was medically fit for discharge from a general paediatric ward and the Hospital Trust indicated that it may take eviction proceedings. Case involved authorisation of chemical restraint by the court to enable rehabilitative physio to take place
Re SCJ [DJ Mullins]
Representing the Official Solicitor in on-going proceedings concerning 21-year-old SCJ, who has been assessed to lack capacity in relation to contact and internet and social media usage but has capacity to engage in sexual relations.
Re MH [HHJ Maclachlan]
Represented the local authority in proceedings involving MH who has a diagnosis of hoarding disorder and schizophrenia and who has been detained on multiple occasions under section 3 MHA 1983 and MH seeking a trial return home.
Re KT [Peel J.]
The central issue in the case was the authorisation of a covert medication plan for KT’s diabetes. The court ordered additional reporting restrictions in the transparency order due to KT being known to search online for his case details.
“Gay marriage under the ECtHR and the German Constitution” GYIL Vol. 60 (2017)
“Are the Maghreb states safe third countries?” GYIL Vol. 59 (2018)
Avril’s privacy notice can be viewed here.
Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.
