Through her background researching human rights violations and assisting victims of domestic violence obtain non-molestation orders Elizabeth has substantial experience of working with people subjected to violence and torture.


Elizabeth’s practice focuses on immigration and housing, with a particular interest in vulnerable clients. She appears regularly in human rights and asylum appeals in the First Tier and Upper Tribunals of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, and in possession, injunction, committal, unlawful eviction, and disrepair claims in the County Courts. She has also represented clients in judicial review claims. Elizabeth is also experienced in international human rights law and the laws of armed conflict.

Elizabeth has been involved in human rights work for nearly 20 years. Her commitment to human rights goes back to time she spent in the Middle East, in her student days, teaching English in a refugee camp in Jordan and carrying out post-graduate research in the Gaza Strip. Between 1998 and 2008 she worked for Amnesty International. Her work took her to Yemen, Iraq, and the Philippines, where she interviewed many people about their experiences of human rights abuse, persecution, and conflict. She also developed guidelines on gathering information from vulnerable individuals, including victims of torture and children. She brings this knowledge and experience to her interaction with clients – whether they are seeking protection from abuse abroad or assistance in keeping their home. Elizabeth’s work at Amnesty required extensive knowledge of international human rights law and the laws of armed conflict. She advised on the legal and policy content of numerous Amnesty documents, including amicus curiae, with a focus on the Middle East and Africa. She has a master’s degree with distinction in Public International Law from LSE and combined Amnesty work with lecturing for the University of Tulsa’s graduate study abroad programme.

After working at Amnesty, Elizabeth moved into research and advisory work working for think tanks, NGOs and universities. This work focused on using human rights law, including the Human Rights Act 1998, to combat poverty and inequality. She has published in leading academic journals, provided training on the effective use of international law in human rights research and campaigning and participated in various expert meetings and seminars.

Elizabeth was called to the Bar in 2015, driven by a desire to apply her skills and knowledge to securing concrete change for individuals. She became a tenant at Garden Court North Chambers in 2016 after completing pupillage.


Elizabeth appears regularly in immigration and asylum appeals in both the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals. Her work focuses on asylum and human rights appeals, and she also regularly appears in bail applications for those in immigration detention. Her asylum work has included claims based on all four refugee grounds, but she takes a particular interest in cases involving the definition of ‘particular social group’ – especially where this involves risk as a result of transgressing social or cultural mores. Her work includes appeals based on Article 8 rights to family and private life, including those relying on paragraphs EX1 and 276 ADE of the Immigration Rules and the reasonableness of expecting children to leave the UK. Elizabeth advises on the merits of, and drafts grounds for, appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review of Upper Tribunal permission decisions.

She also has experience of judicial review covering Dublin III cases, fee waivers, domestic violence, and deportation.

Her notable cases include:

  • O v Secretary of State for the Home Department De novo hearing of asylum case after judicial review and an Upper Tribunal finding of errors or law in the FtT’s first decision: Appellant had arrived in UK as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, seeking asylum on the basis of his membership of a particular social group following a tribal feud in Afghanistan; at the time of the de novo hearing the Appellant was by then an adult, however the judge considered age when events occurred in Afghanistan to be relevant to credibility; the determination found that his stay in the UK, his lack of family support, and his mental health, rendered internal relocation unduly harsh. The appeal was allowed under the Refugee Convention;
  • A and B v Secretary of State for the Home Department Appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse the Appellants’ human rights claims for leave to remain: The case turned on the reasonableness of expecting the second Appellant, child to the first, to leave the UK. It was successfully argued that, even though the first Appellant had overstayed her visa, the child’s interests in staying in the UK were so strong that they outweighed the public interest in immigration control. Both appeals were allowed on human rights grounds;
  • M v Secretary of State for the Home Department Appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s claim for asylum: The Appellant, a national of Iraq, claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership of a particular social group having had a relationship with a man disapproved of by her family – essentially the Appellant was fleeing “honour” based violence. The Secretary of State considered that the Appellant’s account was not credible, pointing to the Appellant’s decision to begin a relationship; her boyfriend’s persistence in seeking her hand in marriage; and the alleged implausibility of a father who was said to be both protective and violent. Having heard evidence and submissions, including detailed references to objective evidence, the judge held that the Appellant had established a well-founded fear of persecution and allowed the appeal; and
  • R(I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Judicial review proceedings: In the face of issued proceedings and detailed statement of facts and grounds the Secretary of State agreed to waive the Claimant’s application fee and reconsider her application for leave to remain under Appendix FM.


Elizabeth appears regularly in the County Courts defending possession, injunction, and committal proceedings. She has also appeared for claimants in unlawful eviction and disrepair cases. She has experience of cases where litigation capacity has become an issue and is particularly interested in ensuring such clients are able to access the protections available to them.

Examples of her work include:

  • BOS4 v Wayne Smith (County Court, May 2017) Accelerated possession proceedings: In this case it was successfully argued on behalf of the defendant that a payment of money, described by the claimant as rent in advance, was in fact a deposit. It was argued that the wording of the tenancy agreement meant that the case could be distinguished from Johnson v Old [2013] EWCA Civ 415, in which the Court of Appeal held that rent in advance, in the circumstances of that case, was not a deposit. The result was that the claimant could not rely on section 21 of the Housing Act 1996 and the claim for possession was dismissed;
  • AO v A (County Court) Unlawful eviction: Secured damages at trial of about £10,000 for unlawful eviction and harassment, including aggravated and exemplary damages. The judge found that a document purporting to be a voluntarily signed surrender of tenancy had been signed under duress. The judge held that the claimant’s evidence and that of her witnesses was credible and accepted their account of an unlawful eviction; and
  • AH v SA (County Court) Unlawful eviction: Secured special and general damages at trial totaling just under £30,000. The defendant’s application on the day of trial to adjourn was successfully opposed, meaning that trial proceeded in the defendant’s absence, although not without representation. The judge found all aspects of the claimant’s account credible and awarded damages, including £2000 for aggravated damages, £2000 for exemplary damages, and £180 per day of being excluded from the property.

Public law (judicial review)

Elizabeth’s public law practice focuses on immigration and housing. She advises on the merits of cases, drafts grounds for judicial review, and appears before the courts. By way of example:

  • In a case concerning fee waivers for immigration applications, the Secretary of State refused to accept that an application was valid because the applicant had sought a fee waiver for her children whilst paying a fee for herself. Upon receiving grounds drafted by Elizabeth, setting out the irrationality and unlawfulness of this position, the Secretary of State withdraw her refusal to accept the application; and
  • Before the Upper Tribunal Elizabeth successfully argued that a decision refusing an application for leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence should be quashed. The Tribunal accepted the arguments that the Secretary of State had failed to fully consider the evidence, including evidence that post-dated the break-down of the relationship.

International law

Drawing on her many years working with Amnesty International, NGOs, and universities, Elizabeth accepts instructions for advice on international human rights law and the law of armed conflict. Her work has had a particular focus on armed conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and on poverty and human rights. She has a particular interest in international humanitarian law and its interaction with human rights law.

Injunctions and breaches of injunction

Elizabeth is experienced in defending applications for injunctions and breaches of injunction.


  • Identifying Human Rights Stories – Middlesex University (July 1, 2014);
  • Mechanisms for the Implementation of Decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Human Rights Quarterly (May 20, 2014);
  • National Responses to Human Rights Judgments: The Need for Government Co-ordination and Implementation – European Human Rights Law Review 2012 (2012);
  • Limits and achievements of the HRA from the socio-economic point of view: the HRA and Poverty – Confronting the Human Rights Act: Contemporary themes and perspectives (2012);
  • Time to incorporate the Convention on the Rights of the Child – Guardian (November 19, 2010);
  • Poverty, inequality and human rights – Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2009);
  • Evaluating the impact of human rights litigation on policy and practice – Journal of Human Rights Practice (2009);
  • Evaluating the impact of selected cases under the Human Rights Act – Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009); and
  • Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Armed Conflict – International Journal of Human Rights.


  • Bar Human Rights Committee;
  • Young Legal Aid Lawyers; and
  • Human Rights Lawyers Association.

Privacy Notice

Elizabeth’s Privacy Notice may be viewed by clicking here.


A very reliable and committed barrister who always provides attention to detail. Elizabeth is very approachable and always at hand to assist. She has a wealth of knowledge and her approach to instructions are always with empathy for clients and concrete delivery of work.Minesh Dhokia, Oakmount Law
Elizabeth approaches even the most complex cases with a calm confidence which comes from her ability to quickly identify the key issues and anticipate the arguments of the other side. She communicates this confidence to the clients and I have had nothing but positive feedback for her advocacy skills. As a solicitor, she is a pleasure to work with as she keeps you fully informed along the way and is pretty much unflappable.Jo Renshaw, Turpin Miller
Elizabeth is a very professional and compassionate barrister. She is very dedicated, efficient and very thorough. She is both approachable and very reliable. Elizabeth is empathic and expresses sensitivity in cases of such a nature. Elizabeth possess extensive knowledge in her designated areas of practice which is evident from the numerous seminars she has delivered and journals/articles she has produced. Elizabeth is a warm, friendly and supportive barrister who is always on hand to offer her expertise and services.Samiya Hashmi, Dicksons Solicitors
I have worked with Elizabeth on several occasions and I have always been very pleased with her work. She is hardworking, approachable and a pleasure to work with. Elizabeth has shown herself able to deal with a wide range of cases, no matter how complicated and is also willing to take difficult decisions when necessary. I look forward to working with her again in the future.Paragon Law


Related news


Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up