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

Overview

Joe’s practice covers the fields of housing, immigration and community care, with a particular focus on public law. He also has expertise in Gypsy/Traveller work, including experience of Mobile Homes Act and trespasser possession claims across both England and Wales, as well as gang injunction applications.

Joe has been instructed in a number of high profile cases. In June 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals in the landmark case of Kiarie, in which Joe represented one of the successful appellants, holding that two foreign national offenders could not be removed from the UK before they have first had the chance, in the United Kingdom, to appeal decisions to deport them. Other notable cases include lead challenges to the Lord Chancellor’s exceptional case funding guidance (Gudanaviciene) and the amended regime for compensation for miscarriages of justice (Nealon). Joe was a finalist in the Legal Aid Newcomer category in the 2016 Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year awards.

Immigration

Joe’s practice covers First-tier and Upper Tribunal appeals, as well as judicial review both in the tribunal and High Court and second appeals to the Court of Appeal, 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 successful appellant Kiarie and a number of other claimants in related challenges, and in cases where asylum or human rights claims are certified as clearly unfounded. His work includes:

  • R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Bail for Immigration Detainees & Anr intervening) [2017] UKSC 42, [2017] 1 WLR 2380, [2017] HRLR 7: This was the successful challenge to the “deport first, appeal later” scheme, on the basis that it was incapable of fair operation in the appellants’ cases;
  • R (FR (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605, [2016] Imm AR 1341: These appeals sought to give guidance on the application of the “clearly unfounded” certification power in two Albanian asylum claims; and
  • R (Bangs) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,  CO/1793/2017: In this case, the Home Secretary agreed to the quashing of her deportation order and the making of a declaration of incompatibility in the context of the proposed deportation of a US national on the basis of unlawful discrimination arising from the gender-bias of nationality legislation at the time of his birth.

Housing

Joe has experience of a broad range of housing and homelessness cases, including possession trials, homelessness appeals, claims for unlawful eviction and housing disrepair, judicial review, committal and injunction applications, as well as the closure orders regime under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. His work includes:

  • Leeds City Council v Persons Unknown & Ors: Where the High Court discharged an injunction improperly obtained by the Council under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, which had the purpose of restraining begging in Leeds City Centre; and
  • Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Ltd v Izevbigie (United Utilities Water Ltd intervening) [2017] EWHC 790 (Ch): Where he represented the defendant in the lead regional case concerning whether agreements with United Utilities amounted to an agreement for the sale and re-sale of water within the meaning of the Water Resale Order 2006.

Joe has a particular interest in Gypsy/Traveller cases and has experience of Mobile Homes Act and trespasser possession claims across both England and Wales. His cases include:

  • R (VC) v North Somerset Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening), CO/3801/2015: A successful challenge to the Council’s housing allocation scheme, on the basis that its “local connection” requirement indirectly discriminated against Gypsies and Travellers and that in framing that requirement the Council failed to comply with its public sector equality duty; and
  • R (O’Brien & Anr) v Bristol City Council (Secretary of State for Transport intervening) [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.

Public law (judicial review)

Joe is a judicial review specialist, with a practice covering his core areas of practice as well as a range of other fields. Some examples of his work in this area include:

  • R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anr (British Red Cross Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247, [2015] 3 All ER 827: 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 deportation appeal;
  • R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 355, [2017] QB 571, [2016] 3 WLR 329, [2016] 2 Cr App R 11, [2016] Crim LR 772: 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; and
  • R (MS) v Independent Monitor of the Home Office [2016] EWHC 655 (Admin), [2016] 4 WLR 88: A successful challenge to the Independent 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.

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.

Community care and mental health

Joe is experienced in community care work arising out of housing and immigration cases and 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; and
  • 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.

Injunctions and breaches of injunction

Joe is experienced in defending applications for injunctions and breach of injunctions, including housing and gang related injunctions.

Notable cases

Supreme Court
  • R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42, [2017] 1 WLR 2380, [2017] HRLR 7: Lead challenge to the Home Secretary’s “deport first, appeal later” power, inter alia, on the basis that removing an appellant pending his or her appeal is incompatible with the procedural protections conferred by Article 8 ECHR.
Court of Appeal
  • R (FR (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605, [2016] Imm AR 1341: Lead appeals concerning the correct approach to be taken to cases where the Home Secretary certifies a claim as being clearly unfounded;
  • R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 355, [2017] QB 571, [2016] 3 WLR 329, [2016] 2 Cr App R 11, [2016] Crim LR 772: Court of Appeal rejects claim that miscarriage of justice compensation provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are incompatible with the presumption of innocence;
  • R (Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1020, [2016] 1 WLR 1961, [2016] 3 All ER 741, [2016] Imm AR 209, [2016] INLR 212; and
  • R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anr (British Red Cross Society intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247, [2015] 3 All ER 827: Court of Appeal concludes that Lord Chancellor’s exceptional case funding guidance wrongly mischaracterised the case-law on Articles 6 and 8 ECHR and decided that funding was required in TG’s case to avoid a violation of Article 47 CFR in a deportation appeal.
High Court
  • Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Ltd v Izevbigie (United Utilities Water Ltd intervening) [2017] EWHC 790 (Ch): Lead case concerning whether RBH’s agreement with United Utilities amounted to an agreement for the sale and re-sale of water within the meaning of the Water Resale Order 2006;
  • R (MS) v The Independent Monitor of the Home Office [2016] EWHC 655 (Admin), [2016] 4 WLR 88: Successful challenge to the Independent Monitor’s decision that information contained within an enhanced criminal records certificate was relevant and credible and ought to be disclosed;
  • R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 1565 (Admin);
  • R (O’Brien & Anr) v Bristol City Council (Secretary of State for Transport intervening) [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin): Eviction of family of travellers from unauthorised encampment in Bristol; challenge to suitability of ‘bricks and mortar’ interim accommodation; and
  • R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anr [2014] EWHC 1840 (Admin).
Upper Tribunal
  • OO (Burma – TS remains appropriate CG) Burma [2018] UKUT 52 (IAC): Country guidance which confirms that despite signs of improvement and the new civilian-led government of Burma, there continues to be a risk of persecution for political activists;
  • 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; and
  • AB v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (DLA) [2015] UKUT 89 (AAC): Appeal concerning the treatment of non-renewal claims for benefit.

Publications and media appearances

  • Contributor, Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice (9th, 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; and
  • ‘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. 

Memberships

  • Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Panel of Preferred Counsel (“C Panel”);
  • ILPA;
  • HLPA;
  • Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers; and
  • Liberty.

Recommendations

Developing a strong name in the market for his expertise in immigration, nationality and asylum law. His practice encompasses First-tier and Upper Tribunal appeals. Strengths: "Incredibly clever, a star of the future and very thorough." "He's a genius, so clever and really good at technical cases." Chambers and Partners 2018

 

Related news

 

Sign up to our mailing list

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

Sign up