Practice Summary

Samantha’s practice encompasses the whole spectrum of public law challenges. She has particular expertise in matters arising out of immigration and human rights issues, standards in public life (Local Councillor Code of Conduct issues), Care Standards Act (the placement of individuals on barring lists), war pensions appeals, mental health cases and cases involving challenges to decisions of regulatory bodies such as the Legal Services Ombudsman or the Security Industry Authority. She regularly appears in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as well as the specialist tribunals and is instructed by individuals as well Government departments and other public bodies. She has also been instructed to appear at Coroner’s inquests.

Samantha is recommended in the 2007 edition of Chambers and Partners Directory as a specialist in Administrative and Public Law who stated: “Samantha was acclaimed for her “excellent cross-examination skills, good judgment, and approachable manner with clients”.

Recent cases of interest include:

Immigration:

HB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 806; [2009] 2 W.L.R. 992; [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 24; [2009] Imm. A.R; Times, July 25, 2008 – The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the meaning of “sufficiently serious” for the purposes of Council Directive 2004/38/EC and the associated domestic regulations, as it applied to threatened future criminal conduct.

DL (DRC) v The Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria & ZN (Afghanistan) v The Entry Clearance Officer, Karachi [2008] EWCA Civ 1420; [2009] 1 F.L.R. 1128; [2009] Fam. Law 195 – The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the proper interpretation of paragraph 352A of the Immigration Rules and held that the words "seeking leave to enter... as the spouse... of a refugee" required that the sponsor was currently a refugee and that if the spouse had taken British Citizenship since the grant of refugee status he was no longer a refugee.

Standards in public life:

R (Councillor Mullaney) v The Adjudication Panel for England & others [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin) – the High Court considered the meaning of “official capacity” and “respect” in the Code of Conduct and gave guidance on the effect of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its relation to the need to uphold standards in public life.

Education – Schools Admissions:

R. (on the application of Drayton Manor High School Governers) v Schools Adjudicator [2008] EWHC 3119 (Admin); [2009] E.L.R. 127 – this was the first High Court challenge to a Schools Adjudicator decision since the change to the Schools Admissions Code. The High Court had to consider the Code’s requirement to promote equity and not disadvantage children from a particular social or racial group in the context of considering a set of over-subscription criteria which had the result of excluding children in particularly deprived area although they lived considerably closer than some children in a less deprived area who did fall within the catchment.

Regulatory – Cancellation of Care Home registration:

Marshall v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2009] EWHC 1286 (Admin) – The High Court considered an appeal from the Care Standards Tribunal in respect of their decision uphold the Commission’s decision to cancel her registration as a provider of a care home, without which she was legally unable to run the home. The judge agreed with the Commission’s submission that in the context of the honesty and integrityrequirementthe burden of proof remained on the individual even in an appeal against cancellation.

Regulatory – Suspension of Childminder registration:

Ofsted v GM & WM [2009] UKUT 89 (AAC) (28 April 2009) – The Upper Tribunal, Lord Justice Carnwath presiding, considered the scope of the powers granted to Ofsted for the purposes of suspending the registration of childminders under regulation 9 of the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/976), as amended and gives guidance on the test to be applied when considering the exercise of those powers. For more detail on news feed – click here

Regulatory – Licensing & the smoking ban:

R. (on the application of Blackpool Council) v Howitt [2008] EWHC 3300 (Admin); (2009) 173 J.P. 101 – the Court was required to consider whether a breach of the smoking ban imposed as a result of s.8 of the Health Act 2006 amounted to a matter that would be relevant when considering the licensing objectives set out under the Licensing Act 2003 s.4(2)(a) and in particular the meaning of the words of "crime and disorder". The judge below held that the words "crime" and "disorder" were to be read conjunctively, so that the word "disorder" qualified the word "crime". Accordingly she held that it was irrelevant. The High Court however upheld the Secretary of State’s submission that the word “and” in this context should be read to mean “or”. It was accordingly relevant and the appeal allowed.

Other – Vexatious litigant:

R. (on the application of Ewing) v DPP [2008] EWHC 2655 (Admin) – Samantha was appointed as an amicus to assist the Divisional Court in their determination as to whether the procedure of applying for judicial review was a “civil proceeding” within the meaning of s42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, even the underlying criminal proceedings giving rise to the application for judicial review could be classified as a “criminal cause or matter”. The Divisional Court agreed with the amicus that the application for permission was nonetheless civil proceedings within the meaning of s42.